Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: Difference between revisions

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"All Arab lands"

The Goals of the campaign section starts with "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands". What is the definition of "all Arab lands"? Are Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat part of the "Arab lands"? If not, why not? According to BDS founder Omar Barghouti, all of Israel must be dismantled. Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article? Is it not relevant information? I would think the (main) goal of the campaign should be mentioned at least somewhere, preferably in the lede.

VwM.Mwv (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Here is your source and it doesn't mention any of that--SharabSalam (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Poll

I noticed from my edit request above that there is at least one editor who is allowed to edit this article who agree with adding the "AntiSemitism" category. However, the addition of the category was revert-warred by another editor. So, I suspect that the best way to settle this is by a poll to determine consensus. Thus:

Should the "Category: AntiSemitism" be added to this article?

• Yes. Add the category per my rationale above. Also, it appears that several of the organizations most active in the BDS movement are openly anti-Semitic. AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your second sentence is a claim that I have not heard before. Can you provide sources? Also I notice you opened this RFC with your 10th edit since opening your account - have you had a different username previously? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Clearly treated as such by many authorities on antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. BDS is often accused of antisemitism (it's even mentioned in the lead), so the category is relevant. “WarKosign” 14:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• No At the very least, for this category to be applicable, one would expect a significant set of facts that demonstrate their antisemitic activity or rhetoric. Mere accusations are not enough, as accusations of antisemitism are often political. This article does not provide a single instance of hatred towards Jews by the BDS movement, neither by statement nor by action. Furthermore, BDS supporters consistently deny that the movement is antisemitic. This also doesn't sit well with the fact that BDS supporters include Jews and even Israeli Jews. To apply this category label is to accept it as fact solely based on the views of BDS critics.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. BDS has been proven time and time again to be an antisemitic posture. Even those who deny this fact admit that antisemitism is a common theme in commentary on the topic. --GHcool (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The fact that many Zionists like to treat any criticism of Zionism as antisemitism doesn't make it so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Categories must not be used to express opinions in Wikipedia's voice. Zero^talk 07:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The assertion that BDS is antisemitic is an opinion, not a fact. There are many reliable sources for the argument that it is not antisemitic, including from Jews and from Israeli citizens. The claim should be included in the article, with both views fairly and neutrally summarised. But our article should not take a position on this debate by including a pejorative label on the Categories. RolandR (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per Exjerusalemite. Number 57 15:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes ShimonChai (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - not a part of the topic of anti-semtism. That some opponents wish to tar it as antisemitic does not make it so. We dont tar groups due to accusations made by their political enemies. nableezy - 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:CATDD “Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories.” Our article states that “Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic”, i.e. this claim is a particular POV held by critics, and is therefore non-neutral. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The BDS campaign targets the Jewish state therefore it is antisemitic. And this simple fact is not entirely reversed by the fact that some Jews support the BDS campaign—this merely shows that there is dissension amongst Jews. It would be surprising if there was not dissension within any group of people on any issue. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. In some cases, something must unequivocally belong to the category to be included in the category. In a case like this, though, the very fact that there is substantial disagreement whether it *is* or *isn't* antisemitism means that it belongs here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes' BDS campaign by its nature is Anti-Semitic as attested by numerous WP:RS [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and many more --Shrike (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per Exjerusalemite. I think the BDS movement has anti-semitic elements, and I can prove it, but that is my opinion. Others think Zionism is a colonialist movement and plenty of WP:RS support this claim, while plenty of WP:RS oppose this claim. Same goes with linking the BDS movement with anti-semitism.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - this movement had clear signs of anti-Semitism that are supported by (and in) violent acts and statements that denies Jews' right to exit in their Ancestral Homeland despite their 2000+ years of hoping to be here once again.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Per WP:CATV "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". Does anyone, on either side of this issue, seriously think it is uncontroversial to say that BDS is antisemitic? Can editors cite reliable sources that clearly consistently describe antisemitism as a defining feature of BDS as a whole? Nblund ^talk 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The STATED GOAL of the BDS is to dismantle the State of Israel. Unless they are anarchists who want to dismantle all states, not just the Jewish one (which they don't), they are anti-Semitic by definition.

VwM.Mwv (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: To clarify, I'm not claiming that anyone who supports any form of one-state solution is anti-Semitic per se. I am merely pointing out the fact that the BDS' official position (along with most of its members/apologists) is to recognize the right of every state except the Jewish one to choose its own immigration policies, which is an obvious form of anti-Semitism. VwM.Mwv (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Untrue - I have just read that source. Your claim is not in there. Please strike your false comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't say about the specific source, but the claim is true. [6] [7] “WarKosign” 07:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I actually got "my claim" from Wikipedia (see Omar Barghouti, BDS co-founder, source no. 16). Also, I advise you to take a look at the sources kindly provided by WarKosign. VwM.Mwv (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. These articles all state support for a one-state solution, removing the racial component from the definition of the state. That is not the same as “dismantling”, rather it is “de-racializing”. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Talk page is for discussion of the article, not for political debates about the topic

@Onceinawhile: I've actually encountered this talking point quite a lot with BDS activists/apologists. My usual response is: Do you also support a one-state solution for the United States and Russia? If not, why not? Is it because you wish to dismantle the Jewish state only? VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC) The US and Russia are not currently occupying each other’s population, nor are there millions of refugees excluded by one country from returning to the other. That is “why not”. Name me another country in the world where millions of people are subordinated to and controlled by people that have no form of accountability to them. Then we can have the conversation anout parallels. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC) That's easy: Poland. Do you also support a one-state solution for Germany and Poland, with unlimited immigration of German refugee descendants into Poland? Edit: On second thought, that's actually a flawed analogy. Germany invaded Poland, but Israel didn't start the Arab–Israeli conflict. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) The answer to your question is yes I do, it is called the European Union and that is exactly how it works. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: Bullshit. Germans who wish to move to Poland must go through Polish immigration policies. That's not "unlimited". But you admittedly don't recognize the right of the Jewish state to have its own immigration policies. Therefore, you, along with the Bullshit, Deception and Semi-nazi (BDS) movement, are anti-Semitic. End of discussion. VwM.Mwv (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) For the record, see VwM.Mwv’s apology at [8]. I accept the apology, although I'm not convinced that the editor has yet developed the maturity and open-mindedness to operate in this impassioned topic area. Perhaps with some close mentoring? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: - there are in fact hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Russian refugees (from the former Soviet Union) in the United States who left prior to 1991 and were stripped of their Soviet (Russian SFSR) citizenship and are unable to return to Russia. I'm not sure what this has to do with BDS being antisemitic (a position espoused by mainstream antisemitism scholars) - but your assertion of lack of "nor are there millions of refugees excluded by one country from returning to the other" - is actually false. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC) You are wrong, per Citizenship of Russia. They were stripped of their nationality because they took on another nationality, not the other way round. And should they wish to return, there is a mechanism available. Either way, we are talking about the double standards test of antisemitism. The Israel/Palestine military occupation is the longest in history, and the Israel/Palestine refugee sitution is the longest unresolved refugee crisis in history. There are simply no precedents, so VwM.Mwv‘s double standard’s claim cannot hold. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) That article is wrong or does not the pre-1991 USSR. Several groups were persecuted in the USSR and were recognized as refugees outside of the USSR. Citizenship was stripped the moment got an emigration visa. Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I'm not sure we have an exhaustive survey of antisemitism scholars, but even if we restrict this to a relatively narrow field of noted historians of antisemitism, its not really true that they all see BDS as antisemitic. There are prominent scholars like Deborah Lipstadt who hold that BDS is antisemitic in its goals but who reject the argument that BDS supporters are necessarily aware of or supportive of antisemitism, and there are others David Myers, who oppose BDS but who also object to equating its goals with antisemitism. Nblund ^talk 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet Myers acknowledges that "Yes, some who support BDS are motivated by anti-Semitism. But I don't believe all who support BDS are anti-Semitic.". It is hard to find anyone serious in the study of antisemitism that does not see an antisemitic component of BDS. That BDS also has antisemitic roots/supporters does not say every BDS is antisemitic. Generalities never (all X are Y) never work - Nazi party members were on the whole antisemitic, yet at least 11 are recognized as Righteous Among the Nations.[9] Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to find respected commentators/groups like Peter Beinart who say that the Nazis are not antisemitic. We might reasonably disagree over who is an expert in antisemitism, but clearly this is clearly a hotly disputed question even among critics of BDS. WP:CATV says we are still subject to WP:V and WP:NPOV, I don't see how we could possibly support writing "BDS is an antisemitic organization" in the article based on these sources, so how can we imply that through categories? Nblund ^talk 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• No This isn't even a remotely uncontroversial label, so it's definitely not appropriate for a category. Parabolist (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Although the movement has been accused by pro-Zionist organisations of anti-Semitism it has not been proven that they are anti-Semites (BTW a lot of Jews support the BDS movement) and the main goal of the organisation is to end the apartheid in the Zionist entity--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam's reference to "The Zionist entity" is supposed to be a pejorative euphemism for the State of Israel. Just wanted to make sure that those of us who don't pick up on that sort of thing can follow the discussion. --GHcool (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, to give WP:DUE weight to the many authoritative and reliable sources that describe BDS as antisemitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory can you cite those sources? The section Allegations of Antisemitism section cites a number of noted voices on both sides of a fairly robust debate. Press coverage from reliable sources like the Guardian, NBC News, and The New York Times also discuss "allegations of antisemitism" and also note prominent defenders. None of them call BDS antisemitic as a matter of fact. Even harsh critics don't pretend that this is an uncontroversial defining characteristic per WP:CATV. I don't see anything resembling an authoritative consensus here. Nblund ^talk 02:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:CAT, particularly WP:CATV. WP:DUE has absolutely nothing to do with the categorization of an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, to be frank I personally believe -- and can back it up with much sourcing, as well as personal experience as a Jew who originally supported BDS back in my rebellious late teenage phase, and abandoned it in disgust for a number of reasons -- that the BDS movement is irretrievably infested with antisemitism. But I am a bit concerned that this debate is centering on whether BDS is antisemitic (imho a bit more complicated -- more like the host of the antisemitic pathogen than the pathogen itself-- but that's one of many views), instead of on policy, especially WP:NPOV which it should be. The view that BDS is antisemitic is widespread and should absolutely be reported, but not in Wikipedia's voice, which is what placing the category amounts to.--Calthinus (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, its not "antisemitic" in the plain-English usage of the term (which refers to Jews, not the state of Israel). If you are looking for a category for groups opposed to the state of Israel, choose a less misleading word.Masebrock (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - Accusations of antisemitism based on anti-Zionism, two different concepts, can be mentioned in the text as opinion; but not included as a categorization of an article. To do so would be Wikipedia taking a position possibly based on religious/ethnic/political/nationalist grounds. O3000 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from the financial ties section

A paragraph was inappropriately removed from the Financial Ties section. The reason given appears to have more to do with partisanship than with any Wikipedia policy regarding sources, etc. The news is buzzing about this report and its relationship with BDS (for example, here and here and here). I intend to restore it within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You do that, when you can cite reliable sources, not opinion columns and whisper campaigns. Which should be never. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Two out of three of the links above are not opinion columns. I'm sure I can find more (for example, here). Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

These sources appear to be discussing the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry's February report. That report is still discussed in the article. The paragraph that was removed discussed an earlier report from Tablet magazine which does not appear to have gained much coverage elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Carry on, gentlemen. --GHcool (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope - these predate the ministry report (which if at all copied the 2018 press). We have RSes discussing direct ties between BDS orgs and terrorrist organizations - and per DUE this should clearly be in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

By "this" do you mean the ISAM report or do you mean the report from Tablet? The Israeli report is included already. Nblund ^talk 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tablet 2018 and secondary reporting on the Tablet report by other RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What are those other sources? The three cited here all come from earlier earlier this month. This article from the Times of Israel is all I can find that directly discusses the Tablet story. It sort of seems redundant to cite this accusation given the more substantial and widely covered accusations in the ISAM report. Nblund ^talk 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this: I'm not sure what changed, but I still don't really see why we need to add an even more sensationalized retelling of the same information to the article. Haaretz says these most recent reports are "very similar to earlier publications by the right-wing group NGO Monitor" repackaged for the purposes of "waging a Hasbara campaign". I don't often read the Israeli press, but that sounds to me like a reliable (if editorially slanted) source is more or less calling this a PR campaign. The AP's coverage also seems to be fairly skeptical - noting that most of the cases are based on "vague accusations of affiliation or expressions of sympathy for militant groups". That skepticism doesn't appear to be reflected in this section. As it stands, "financial ties" section appears to consist almost entirely of slight variations on this same contested accusation - which strikes me as patently non-neutral. Maybe this stuff should be moved to the reactions section? Nblund ^talk 20:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Equal weight

Wikipedia talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussions about the article topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead should give equal weight to the critics who call BDS an anti-Semetic targeting of Jews by Islamic terrorist groups.American Zionist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC) no thanks. nableezy - 18:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC) What specifically do you want to change? The lead already cites critics (including former ADL head Abe Foxman) who say that BDS is anti-Semitic or that it relies on anti-Semitic rhetoric. Nblund talk 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Put the criticism of BDS and the targeting of Jews in the first paragraph. The comparison to the Nazis is more comparable than the South African one.American Zionist (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Comparisons to Nazi’s is always problematic, and certainly shouldn’t be moved higher up. The ordering seems correct: description, proponents, opponents. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC) The lead of this article is similar to the leads for other organizations like the NRA, Black Lives Matter, and the ADL: we start by laying out undisputed facts about what the organization is and what it does, then we talk about their self-description and their motivations, and then we discuss criticisms and controversies toward the end. Readers need basic facts first, the criticisms don't make sense unless readers have some basic context. Personal views about which analogy is more apt aren't really relevant here. Nblund talk 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia describes rightly the KKK as a white supremacist group, BDS is just as vile so it is proper that should be the lead.American Zionist (talk) First Islamic terrorist groups, then Nazi's and now the KKK. This is not useful. O3000 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) BDS terror links and Omar Barghoti's support of terrorism is not in dispute.24.30.242.28 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) User:Sir Joseph, hmmm, where is the proof that Omar Barghoti "support terrorism"? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC) See here, [10] Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC) A propaganda piece by an Israeli Ministry is exactly 0 proof. Ask yourself, would Israel let Omar Barghoti walk around as a free man if there was any proof against him? Any at all?? Of course not, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Also, the only thing that propaganda piece says about Omar Barghoti, is that it quotes him saying: “No Palestinian will ever accept a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Now, you might disagree with that, but that is an opinion, and an voicing an opinion does not mean that you are a "terrorist supporter". Please retract your words about Omar Barghoti, or risk being report you for a BLP violation, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Barghouti is a senior official in BNC, and the BNC has ties to PFLP and Hamas. That you consider the report propaganda is irrelevant, they lay out the facts and ties. I read the report, and if the only way to get your point across is by having ties to terror organizations, then perhaps it's time to rethink your ideology. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC) You stated that "Omar Barghoti's support of terrorism is not in dispute". That is an extremely serious allegation, an allegation which you have given exactly 0 proof of. Your only answer is to link to an Israeli Ministry report, and even that does NOT say that Omar Barghoti supports terrorism. Your "Guilt by association" does not work, you should know that. Again, please withdraw your accusation against Omar Barghoti, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) [11] Here's a chapter of a book where he glorifies terrorism. Here is another statement of his, [12], if you want, here is a collection of his statements that glorifies violence and terrorism, [13] Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The two first links does not work for me, and the last, canarymission, is an anon smear site, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) they have links to all his statements of his supporting terrorism and violence going back years. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The problem for you is that what he says (like “we believe that people under occupation, in international law, have a right to resist by any means, including violent means,") is exactly what international law says...That does not make him "supporting terrorism". Any people has the right to oppose occupation. (Btw, by your standard, my beloved late father was a terrorist, from 1940 to 45 (the authorities that ruled our land in that period thought so too)), Huldra (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC) "as long as we attack legitimate targets, that is, the occupation, settlers [i.e., Israeli civilians] and people who are armed."Sir Joseph (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets? Huldra (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) firstly, he didn't say armed settlers, he said settlers. Secondly, being armed is not an excuse for violence, there are 300 million guns in the USA does that mean I can preemptively kill someone with a gun? Why would an armed person be a legitimate target just for being armed? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon any armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... Huldra (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: said: Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. I removed the post because it was from a self-admitted blocked sock. And please, why are you claiming that I fund terrorism? That’s probably the worst WP:PA I have received in my 11+ years here. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Impact of BDS"

The first source I looked at for the claim that "reports from both in and outside of Israel indicated that the movement had made very little impact on the Israeli economy, and suggested that it was unlikely to for the foreseeable future."

[77] is an article that lists no stats, claims that the primary goal of BDS is in fact 'hatred of Jews', and the quotes cited for the article are from people who have a vested interest in making it appear that the boycott is having no effect.... and I'm looking at all the other sources, not one is from outside of Israel, despite the quote claiming there are some, which is misleading.

Looking at the next reference: [78] is also written by people with a conflict of interest, and includes quotes from the Israeli government as primary 'proof', when they have a conflict of interest to make it appear that they're doing well.

[79] is also all fluff...

[80] is awful... it's like the commercials from Star Ship troopers.

Also the premise of this paragraph is misleading. The point of BDS isn't 'to harm Israel's economy' That's not the point of the boycott, so saying that it hasn't been harmed is changing the subject. The point is to 'frustrate Jewish development in Palestine', not in Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7a6c:4500:38f8:416:b105:5466 (talk • contribs)

I've pared this section back in pieces to allow easier reverts of my changes. Some of the sources do seem iffy and it did appear that, taken together, Wikipedia was trying to argue a point. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of your edits had merit. I made corrections where they were necessary. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Although, I think comments on the significance of Israel's GDP by a philosophy and history major is a stretch for an encyclopedia article. Economists have enough difficulty discerning such effects.O3000 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)