Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ireland, Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018

Notification of Avaya1 about a breach of IRR on the article (which carries an ARBPIA editnotice): [1].     ←   ZScarpia   16:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Avaya1 had two objections to the removed text, which was about the Irish "Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018":

• The text was cited to an article in the Middle East Monitor, which is not a reliable source.
• That the Irish bill "is not related to the BDS Movement. Some points to note: the sponsor of the bill, Independent Senator Frances Black, has links to the Palestinian rights movements; the Israeli government views the act as a BDS bill; Arab-Israeli and Palestinian politicians view the act as a BDS bill.

Some sources:

• The Times of Israel: 'The advancement of the legislation was denounced by Israel and hailed by Palestinian officials and Arab Israeli Knesset members. “The Irish Senate has given its support to a populist, dangerous and extremist 'anti-Israel boycott initiative that hurts the chances of dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians; it will have a negative impact on the diplomatic process in the Middle East,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “The absurd in the Irish Senate’s initiative is that it will harm the livelihoods of many Palestinians who work in the Israeli industrial zones affected by the boycott,” read the statement, issued by the ministry’s spokesperson, Emmanuel Nahshon. ... Ahead of the speech, Black said she was a bit a nervous because she had been told that “the whole of Palestine is listening.” ... Black, a former singer from Dublin who entered parliament in 2016, has long been supportive of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of Israel’s settlement enterprise. ... “The initiative gives backing to those who seek to boycott Israel and completely contravenes the guiding principles of free trade and justice,” Netanyahu said, hours before the planned vote.' (In the "Read More" section: "BDS Boycott Divestment Sanctions")
• YNetNews: 'Senator Black recently led an anti-Israeli campaign in cooperation with Al-Haq—a Palestinian human-rights organization based in Ramallah with deeply-rooted connections to the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—in addition to her support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in the country. ... "The Irish Senate has given its backing to the despicable boycott organizations linked to terror groups and make cynical use of the term 'human rights' to spread hatred that only exasperates the conflict,” the minister stressed in a statement.'
• Forbes (column): 'Defense minister Avigdor Lieberman has called for Israel to close its embassy in Dublin, tweeting that “There is no point in summoning the Irish ambassador to Israel for a ‘reprimand’. With the oppressors of Israel there is nothing to argue with. Israel should immediately close the embassy in Dublin. We will not turn the other cheek to those who boycott us.” One concern of the Israeli authorities appears to be that the Irish legislation will set give a boost to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which campaigns to isolate the Israeli economy because of the Israeli government’s promotion of settlements in the West Bank, the treatment of Palestinians and other issues.'
• Haaretz: 'On Wednesday, the Irish senate passed another stage of a bill calling to boycott produce originating in Israeli settlements. Both of these legal moves were pushed by the Palestinians ahead of International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which takes place Thursday. ... Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), lauded the legislative moves on Thursday by saying: "On the occasion of International Solidarity Day with Palestine, it is important to extend the Palestinian peoples’ gratitude to the courageous efforts of both the Chilean and Irish Parliaments. The efforts of both distinguished parliaments have triumphed for the justice and rights of the Palestinian people."'
• Haaretz: 'The Irish Senate approved on Wednesday another stage in the legislation to boycott the sale of products from Israeli settlements.'
• The Irish Times: 'Israel’s parliament has cancelled a trip to Ireland scheduled for March by a delegation of legislators in protest against the Bill boycotting goods manufactured in the West Bank which was passed by the Dáil last week. ... Mr Cohen said Israel would come up with an appropriate response. “The boycott attempts by the sponsors of the bill in Ireland are despicable, pathetic and hypocritical. We will act to prevent by all means the final approval of the Bill. If the anti-Semitic voices prevail in the Irish parliament and this despicable bill is passed into legislation, we will take retaliatory measures,” he said. ... Mr Cohen, a member of the centrist Kulanu party, recalled how he responded to BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) activists in Canada. ... Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative party, said the measure was a “great victory for the BDS movement”.'
• IrishCentral: 'He said Ireland had led the way with the use of sanctions against Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s and it could do so again by criminalizing trade with the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.'
• The Times of Israel: 'Black, a former singer from Dublin who entered parliament in 2016, acknowledged that she had long taken an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but stressed that her bill may also apply to other occupations, mentioning Western Sahara. ... The Joint (Arab) List also welcomed the bill, saying it hoped it would “mark the beginning of a new stage in which Israel starts to pay an international political, economic and moral price for its actions.”' (In the "Read More" section: "BDS Boycott Divestment Sanctions")
• The Times of Israel. (In the "Read More" section: "BDS Boycott Divestment Sanctions")
• Irish Independent (column).
• Jewish News: Title: "Israel’s new envoy to Ireland on facing an ‘extreme’ BDS challenge": 'If passed, the Bill would criminalise Irish residents or businesses for trading with Jewish settlements, making Ireland the first EU state to legalise a boycott ... He seems to suggest boycotting settlements equates to denying the Jewish people the right to exist in their historic homeland, a controversial view given all the UN resolutions and the ’67 borders, but continues apace.'
• The Jerusalem Post: '“Ireland needs to be a world leader in refusing to [accept] illegal settlements built on Palestinian land,” said Irish parliamentarian, Deputy Fiona O’Loughlin. “This historic bill is an important message from us as a small nation, expressing our solidarity with the Palestinian people who are living in dreadful conditions in the occupied territories,” she said. ... “The Palestinian people look to Ireland to lead and stand in solidarity with them," Deputy Mary Lou McDonald said. ... "This shameful piece of legislation is both illegal under European Law and the anti-boycott provisions of the US Departments of Commerce and Treasury."' {In the Tags section: Bds}
• The Palestine Chronicle: Title: "Ireland Passes BDS Bill to Outlaw West Bank Settlement Goods": 'Ireland has been a long-time supporter of the BDS movement.'
• Al Jazeera: 'Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative party, said the bill is a "great victory for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS)". ... The BDS movement seeks to end the occupation and dismantle Israel's illegal wall and settlements, demands full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and calls for the rights of Palestinian refugees to be upheld.' {In the "Read More" section: "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: What is BDS?"
• The Irish Times.
• thejournal.ie (column).

• {added: 21:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)} TeleSur: Title: "'Great BDS Victory': Ireland's Lower House Passes Bill Banning Israeli Settlements Goods": 'The BDS movement is celebrating the aproval of a bill in the Lower Chamber, to criminalize commercial activities with the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. ... This bill is a "great victory for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS)," according to Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative Party, who added that an effort will be made "to pass similar laws in a number of European countries in the near future. ... The non-violent BDS movement, founded in 2005 by 170 Palestinian unions, political parties, refugee networks, and women organizations, among others, has gained such renown that it has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Inspired by South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement, BDS calls for non-violent pressure on Israel through boycotting any organization linked to Israel, withdrawing investment from Israeli companies, and sanctioning the county until Israel 1) recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees to return, 2) ends the military occupation of Palestine, and 3) ends the apartheid regime by recognizing Palestinian's equal rights."'
• {added: 00:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)} New York Post: Title: "Foreign desk: Adopting BDS Could Cost Ireland Big-Time": 'Since its founding, the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel has largely been symbolic, with little practical effect. But as Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reports, Ireland’s parliament is “looking to change all this,” voting this week on a bill to criminalize any transactions with businesses or individuals in the West Bank. ... If the bill succeeds (the Senate passed it last July), “Ireland would become the most anti-Israel nation on the planet outside of Iran and the Middle East.”'
• {added: 09:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)} The Irish Times (Letter): Letter from "concerned citizens of Israel" (firstly, Uri Avnery) regarding the Occupied Territoris bill and urging "Ireland to support any legislation that will help enforce differentiation between Israel per se and the settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem."

    ←   ZScarpia   18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC) {augmented: 21:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)} {augmented: 00:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)} {augmented: 09:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)}

Your quotes prove beyond any doubt that the bill is about boycott. Not every boycott is related to BDS, though. Some people in Israel do make the connection. Is it enough? Do we cover every action that someone alleged as related to BDS here ? “WarKosign” 18:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I highly recommend the following Long Read Guardian article, which hasn't currently been cited, as an account of the history and nature of BDS and the counter-response to them:

The Guardian - Nathan Thrall - BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate, 14 August 2018.

The BDS movement (lower-case 'M') is rather organic, not rigidly organised from a centre. As far as the scope of this article goes and what should be included, the BDS Call of 2005, which listed a number of objectives, was a seminal moment and it's fair to include activity which takes its inspiration from that. Of course, source evidence is needed in support.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that some people think this is related to BDS is not surprising and not relevant. Is there a reliable secondary source that says this is in support of BDS. Unlikely since it doesn’t appear to boycott Israel and I don’t see it in this list of sources. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What I edited in before reversion was accurate (whether one believes the Israeli MoFA to be a reliable source is another matter). https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/595f57524.pdf Congressional Research Service report- "Debate is ongoing in the United States and elsewhere about whether economic differentiation (such as with regard to product labeling policies) between Israel proper and Israeli settlements constitutes a form of BDS" and "defining precisely what may or may not constitute BDS activity is subject to debate." Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Presumably this edit, which cites a page from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website which recounts how the Irish ambassador was "summoned for a clarification meeting regarding the legislative initiative calling for a boycott of trade with the settlements." "The ambassador stressed that the initiative was raised by independent representatives in the Irish Senate and that the Irish government opposes the initiative, adding that this is not a BDS initiative and that the Irish government opposes BDS. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Director-General - Europe Division emphasized Israel’s firm opposition to the legal initiative and made it clear that any initiative to boycott settlement products is a BDS initiative, and requested the ambassador to convey this message to the Irish authorities."     ←   ZScarpia   12:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be clear that the Israeli gov’t is not a reliable source for the definition of BDS. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

But surely the BDS Movement itself is? Top 70 Moments of Solidarity & BDS for Palestine in 2018 RolandR (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, but neither BDS nor Israel are reliable sources for the meaning of Irish Gov't actions. Nothing unusual about a side declaring a win or loss that doesn't actually exist. I would not use either party in a conflict as a source for the meaning of a third party's or the other party's action. It would be like using as a source the Republicans for why the Democrats did something or vice-versa. O3000 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The point is that in the absence of an agreed definition of BDS, it is not for us to decide that something is or isn't BDS and if the involved parties themselves consider it as BDS, who are we to disagree with them?Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Does Ireland consider it support of BDS? We can't say an Irish action is in support of BDS if Ireland says it isn't. O3000 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We can say that Israel thinks it is and Ireland thinks it isn't and there is no agreed definition to say who is right. Which is what I was trying to achieve with my original edit.(Although on reflection the point about there being no agreed definition ought probably to be somewhere else in the article since it is not necessarily specific only to Ireland)Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

BDS is a boycott against Israel. Ireland passed a boycott against illegal settlements, which nearly all countries consider occupied territory as opposed to a part of Israel. Israel doesn't get to say that Ireland's action is a boycott of Israel when it isn't. As far as I can see, Ireland said nothing about halting trade with Israel -- only products made in illegal settlements. A boycott of elephant tusks is not a total trade embargo with any country that exports them. O3000 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no agreed definition and it isn't for you make one up in its absence.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make anything up. I'm just looking at the article and cites. The Palestinians and Israeli gov't appear to be making things up. Can you find any cites showing the Irish gov't is supporting BDS with this bill? O3000 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to find one as I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming that the Israelis say its BDS, that the Irish say its not and there is no agreed definition as to whether it is or it isn't. If the Palestinians and the Israeli gov are "making things up", then produce a secondary source saying that rather than giving your own opinion. What you are trying to do is impose your POV on whether it is or isn't BDS.Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources for something I don't think should be added. This article is about BDS. There is no claim by the Irish gov't that it supports BDS. None of the cites provided show the Irish gov't making any announcement of that nature. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a claim by the Israeli government that it is, which you are simply dismissing. The position is similar to the argument over "occupied", in Wikipedia we write all the time...blah, blah.."occupied" and then "the Israeli government disputes this" or similar and it is left to the reader to judge for themselves what to make of that position. We do not say that all of the sources and whatnot demonstrate that it is occupied and refuse to put in the Israeli claim, do we? We put it in.Selfstudier (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

On the above basis I have restored the originally reverted item and added the two refs that indicate the nature of the dispute and who it is doing the disputing.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You can start an RfC if you wish. But, you shouldn't add without consensus. O3000 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion of my edit until there is consensus for it's removal. Note that up until now I have not reverted anything.Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for this text. You have restored challenged text without consensus. O3000 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, assuming that the re-insertion of text counts as a revert, you have just broken the 1RR rule. Unless someone else intervenes, I think you should revert the second of your edits. Some of the claims Objective3000 are pretty dubious. including the one that "there is obviously no consensus for this text", but hopefully a little more discussion will clarify the situation.     ←   ZScarpia   11:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not breached 1RR, the reversion I have just made is my first revert. (my original edit did not involve reinserting the original text it was the addition of new sourced text which was then reverted).Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So, to clarify, this section is about a breach of 1RR by another editor, at least it started out that way. I could have reverted before had I chosen to, instead I chose to have this conversation. As regards the claim that the Irish government do not believe it to be BDS, I have not once disputed that, that fact was in my original sourced edit (and which was reverted). There is a claim by the Israeli government (as well reflected in sources that tend to reflect their views) that the action is BDS and we should not just ignore that claim (whether we believe it or not is quite another thing). It is also true that there is no hard and fast definition to turn to and we should reflect that fact as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Section title changed to reflect the way the discussion has grown, from "Avaya1: breach of 1RR restriction" to "Ireland, Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018".     ←   ZScarpia   18:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The only sources that I have seen that claim this is in support of BDS are sources that often consider anything against the wishes of the Israeli gov't as anti-Semitic. The fact is that Ireland passed a law that does not boycott Israel and they did not say that they support BDS. The section title is Responses by other governments. This is not a response to BDS. Ireland passed this law in January and still trades with Israel. You have no consensus for this challenged text. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Playing with the words won't help, the Israeli government did not say that it was in support of BDS, they said it was a "BDS action". I do not disagree with your thesis that the Israeli government may call pretty much any kind of criticism a BDS action for effect but this is no different to all of the other arguments that they put forward in support of their positions and we should reflect it at least. It's not as if they are claiming something prima facie outlandish such as the moon being made of cheese. Our readers surely are able to make their own judgement as to what they believe, aren't they?

In the matter of "responses to BDS", we can take the case of Chile, which towards the end of last year passed a non binding resolution in its parliament calling on the government to do all sorts of things that the Israeli government disagrees with. At the same time, the Chilean gov also said that municipalities could not boycott Israel. If we follow your logic, we should report that the Chilean government has banned boycotts by municipalities and ignore the parliamentary motion since it (apparently) has nothing to do with BDS. Yet the truth is that these things rarely happen in a vaccuum, it is doubtful that the Chilean parliament would have passed their motion if there were no BDS movement, ditto the Irish case (that's my opinion, at least I have no secondary source saying that).Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier: Playing with the words won't help, the Israeli government did not say that it was in support of BDS, they said it was a "BDS action". Sorry, but isn't irony ironic? And yes, your opinion doesn't matter and appears highly speculative. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we are getting a bit off track now; returning to the matter at hand, is it your position that the only way to resolve this is by way of removal of all of the material relating to the Irish government legislation in progress or are you as well insisting that the Israeli claim and material relating to the fact of there being no definition be removed as well? Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked at all of the other country responses and they all relate directly to BDS except for Ireland. The Irish gov't response has nothing whatsoever to do with BDS. Indeed, nothing to do with B or D or S. They are not boycotting, divesting or sanctioning Israel. You restored challenged text without consensus. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Proof by repetition? You keep repeating the position of the Irish gov but I am not disputing the position of the Irish gov. We agree about the position of the Irish gov. Nor is B.. D.. S.. a definition of BDS, you seem intent on deciding that all by yourself when no-one else can agree on what it is. In any case, since you do not appear to want to resolve the issue and no one else seems willing to get involved, I see little point in further discussion at this stage.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

B and D and S aren't a def of BDS? That is, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions isn't Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Fascinating. And you admit the position of the Irish gov't is not related to BDS and yet insist on including it under Responses by other gov'ts. You are correct there is no point in continuing. So, revert your revert of challenged text without consensus. O3000 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I propose that instead of putting this material under Irish response which appears to be what you are principally objecting to at this point, we instead put some of it in a revised form under the Section "Reactions by Israeli authorities". I suggest the following:

In a response to Ireland's progressing of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) billref>https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/6/eng/initiated/b0618s.pdf</ref> the Israeli prime minister issued a press release "..strongly condemns the Irish legislative initiative, the entire goal of which is to support the BDS movement and harm the State of Israel." and instructing "..the Irish Ambassador to Israel be summoned to the Foreign Ministry on this matter."ref>"PM Netanyahu condemns Irish legislative initiative". Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 30 January 2018. Retrieved 28 June 2019.</ref> This was duly done and thereafter the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement "..made it clear that any initiative to boycott settlement products is a BDS initiative, and requested the ambassador to convey this message to the Irish authorities." while the Irish ambassador said "...this is not a BDS initiative and that the Irish government opposes BDS."ref>"Irish ambassador summoned to the MFA for clarification". Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 31 January 2018. Retrieved 28 June 2019.</ref>

and I will deal with the matter of definition of BDS elsewhere in the article as a separate matter. Is that acceptable?Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for an attempt at compromise. But, I think it’s worse as the hyperbole in the statement amplifies the seeming importance of the Irish bill which is not related to BDS, the subject of this article. O3000 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's an Israeli government reaction and they do need something to be reacting to, don't they? All I have done is mention it in something less than one sentence. So I have added it in.Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they do not need something to respond to to pretend they are responding to something. You continue to make edits without consensus to an article under discretionary sanctions. You have been warned a few times on your TP about this, not by me. You need to stop acting as if you WP:OWN articles. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. O3000 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a procedure for complaints; if you feel aggrieved, then I suggest you follow it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil. I said nothing about being "aggrieved". I am recovering from eye surgery three days back and don't have the patience for AN/I or AE at the moment. Obviously you will have problems if you continue on this course. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully enough source evidence has been provided to show that the Irish bill is associated with the subject of BDS. On the issue of where to include detail about the bill in the article, the argument has been raised that, because the Irish ambassador in Israel, according to the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, said that the bill wasn't a "BDS initiative", it shouldn't go in a section titled "Responses by other governments". Examination of that section, shows that other content isn't confined solely to actions which governments have carried out, but also those carried out by state or municipal legislatures. The Irish bill was passed by the Irish Senate, it does therefore fit in with the other content from that point of view, though perhaps the title of the section should be changed. If the ambassador's purported comments are included in the article, it would be better if a source which is reliable for more than what the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry stated is found. Another argument advanced was that, as the bill targets trade with Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories rather than with Israel itself, it is irrelevant to the article. As the settlements are a target of BDS, as their principal occupants are Israeli citizens and as the majority of them have been established or maintained with the aid of Israeli organisations, that argument is invalid. Having said that, it should be pointed out that the bill targets all "occupied territories", not just the Israeli ones, though source content, including that about the sympathies of the bill's sponsor, makes clear that Israel's are considered to be those which are really in the crosshairs.     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to see any reliable secondary source that says the Irish passed any bill about BDS and am disturbed by the addition without consensus against WP guidelines suggesting that their policy is the opposite of their actual policy towards BDS. O3000 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Above, multiple sources make various connections between the bill and BDS. The party which forms the Irish government opposed the bill, but the Senate still passed it. Are you trying to argue that, because the governing party opposed it and because, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, the Irish ambassador to Israel stated that the bill wasn't a "BDS initiative", that overrides everything that the sources listed by me and other editors above say? How are you measuring consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am measuring consensus by the fact that some editors are for and some against and I don't see consensus for inclusion. Most of the sources listed are absurd, opinion, and/or duplicative. I still have not seen a single source that tells us Ireland says it passed this bill in support of BDS or having anything at all to do with BDS and am tired of repeating this. We should not suggest that the Irish gov't passed a bill to support BDS when they say they don't. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit doesn't say that the Irish have passed a bill in support of BDS, that's a red herring so yes, you might as well stop repeating that. The edit also says explicitly that the Irish ambassador said it isn't anything to do with BDS and the government doesn't support BDS.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Then why is the edit here if Ireland didn't pass a bill supporting BDS. And again, I'm tired of responding to the same arguments time after time. No point anyhow as you ignore what other editors say and edit-war your desired text into the article without consensus. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit is no longer about Ireland although it does make the Irish position absolutely clear in passing. You may think of Ireland as simply being the subject of an Israeli response that sheds light on the way Israel looks at these things. I dare say the Israelis will say much the same sort of thing when some country other than Ireland does something they don't like and I would report that in here as well if they mentioned BDS.Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Then add them to one of the articles on Israel. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Some editors are for and some against." The only editor commenting here who is explicitly against is you, actually, though consensus is supposed to be about the quality of arguments rather than a show of hands, of course. Something I'd prefer not to have to repaeat myself is that the Irish Sentate passed the bill against the opposition of the Irish government. What the Irish government or its representatives says about the bill therefore is unlikely to reflect the views of the majority, who supported it, including its sponsor, who is a supporter of Palestinian rights. Is there anything included by Selfstudier which you object to on the grounds of neutrality or sourcing (something to note, as I've written before, is that the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry website is only reliable for statements by the Israeli government).     ←   ZScarpia   00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The only editor commenting here who is explicitly against is you. That is demonstrably false. Fact is, I'm the one stupid enough to continue in a circular argument when the other editors that agree have been intelligent enough to stop responding. I provided the solution -- start an RfC. The edit-warrier ignored my advice and decided to edit-war in changes without consensus; which you apparently support. As far as the fact that a Palestinian supports this line -- how many times do I have to respond to the exact same arguments? BOTH sides are not reliable. They say what they say for their own political reasons. The Palestinians want to declare this a victory and the Israelis want to consider this an insult and they are BOTH wrong, they are BOTH doing this for political reasons and they are BOTH totally unreliable as far as any connection between the Irish bill and the BDS. They are using a completely irrelevant Irish bill to push their own agenda by attempting to insert Ireland into a conflict in which they apparently have no interest. Must we, as an encyclopedia, be drawn into these silly political traps? Aren't we smart enough to stay out of this tit-for-tat crap and just stick to actual relevant facts? WP:10YT. Will anyone think this bill relates to BDS in ten years? O3000 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's stick to what sources say rather than personal beliefs. "Other editors that agree have been intelligent enough to stop responding." Where are the comments they left before they decided to stop responding?     ←   ZScarpia   01:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Irish (minority) government is attempting to block implementation of the bill using the "money message" mechanism: The Electronic Intifada - Ciaran Tierney - Battle underway in Ireland over ban on settlement goods, 11 July 2019: "Legislation to introduce such a ban has received majority support in both houses of Ireland’s parliament, the Oireachtas. Yet the country’s government is expected to try and wreck the legislation by invoking the little known “money message” provision."     ←   ZScarpia   10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

adding 4il website to External links Critical of BDS

We can add https://4il.org.il/ to the external link in the Critical of BDS section. It belongs there. It is a website that focuses in criticize the BDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.7 (talk • contribs)

It does not belong there. I have had a look at this site, it is nothing more than a heavily biased blog type site of which there are many on the net. Even if you were to try to source an article from this site, I doubt the editors here would accept it as RS (I wouldn't).Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

almost all website regarding this subject are biased to one direction or anther. If it is in the section of external link that is critical of BDS, then it is totally fit. Because in this section all website are biased against the BDS. SO it does fit the section of the external link critical of bds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.7 (talk • contribs)

Is there anything notable about this site ? If yes, please explain how. We can't just add all pro- or anti- BDS sites here, the list will be too long and completely useless. “WarKosign” 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the site is a project of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs. O3000 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

exactly, it is a project of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs and that by itself make it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.7 (talk • contribs)

Near as I can figure, funded by Sheldon Adelson. In any case, appears to be a state propaganda project and resembles a hate site as it equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. O3000 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: - please provide reliable sources for both of your assertions above - or strike the assertions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Which assertions? O3000 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In the comment above my request You made a statement on a BLP as well as on the nature of a website allegedly funded by a said BLP (and certainly run by other BLPs) - unless you have sources back up your statement - these should be struck. Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

[2][3] O3000 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not support the assertions you made, which should be struck. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

They support Adelson's involvement, and I just said "Near as I can figure". As for equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, they have on rotation a headline that states "Anti-Zionism is pure hatred of Jews". That's accuses a large number of Jews of being antisemitic. O3000 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make it an hate site and there also Jews that equate the same. In any case this are all your opinion. You need to bring a reliable source that says it an hate site otherwise, your opinion is irrelevant.

The site does seem affiliated with Israel government - it has the Ministry of Strategic Affairs logo and the domain is registered to Israeli Government Advertising Agency. What makes it notable? There is already a response by the ministry under Reactions by Israeli authorities, I don't see any reason to add this site as well. “WarKosign” 12:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this is website of Israeli minister, does make it notable . Otherwise what make notable the other link? What is the criteria? Because being official website of Israeli government should be enough to make it notable and deserved to be included.

The main article on (the English version) of that site is not even about BDS. And there are other articles that are nothing to do with BDS. It is as I said to begin with, nothing more than a typical heavily biased blog type site of no relevance here. (I haven't been through the external links myself, I assume they are directly concerned with BDS matters.)Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no "main article" in this website. And this website defiantly focus in the BDS. You can not mistake it for anything but anti BDS website. It is clear that this website is focus in the BDS. Whether this website is bias or not is irrelevant for the question of adding it to the external links. the only thing that relevant is whether or not it is notable. And as a website that is sponsored and run by the Israeli government it is notable.

In the English version and taking up the full width and more than half of the page down is an article about antisemitism and in the bottom quarter another article promoting a video about Hamas. So I disagree, this site is not primarily about BDS. There is a Wikipedia page Ministry of Strategic Affairs, I would suggest you put your link there rather than here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Please change this line in this wikipedia article,

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

to

1. Ending its occupation in Israeli-occupied territories, decolonization of Israeli settlements, and dismantling of the Israeli West Bank Wall Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the change of this based on my reading of "https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds." I absolutely fail to understand what "Arab lands" mean. To mean it is an overgeneralization and misleading term of what is going on. Furthermore, "Israeli-occupied territories," which is the title of the linked article, need to use that detail technical term rather than an ambigious "occupation," for that could be anything. Alternatively, I suggest instead of "Israeli-occupied territories," which is the title of the linked, you can say, "West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel." The last term was also ambiguous and could mean any wall unless one clicks on a link that says "wall." Again, the suggested change to wall is related to the title of the wikipedia article. It isn't my specific wording. To me as face value as it is, it looks like whoever edited and made that original statement made it meant to mislead, if not just give vagueness, about the statement in goal one of that "https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds." Indeed, Arab land could mean some arabism movement, wall could be the great wall of china, occupation could mean temporary military or security occupation of whatever. You have to admit that those words are as vague and as little meaning as could be whoever wanted it to be such.

@Ap4lmtree2: You're doing original research: trying to understand what BSD means by its stated goals. Don't. If you have some secondary source commenting on this statement of goals then perhaps we can add this commentary, otherwise WP:ABOUTSELF applies - a statement by BDSs of its own goal is a sufficient source for quoting/paraphrasing what these goals are, without any changes to the meaning. “WarKosign” 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. [A] Your current argument that the Goals of the Campaign section ought not list their stated goals, but it should list somehow what is underneath those goals? There is some kind of hidden or unrevealed agenda? Is that your argument right now? [B] However, to address your concerns that my statement is original research or a source from within myself, I do not think that is true, for every single term in my requested statement for that section it is referenced and sourced. [B1] For the first term, from "https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds," "West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights" is what they state as occupied terrorities. In addition to this, I merely expanded the original statement's "occupation" link to be the article title of that link. If you are to argue that term is incorrect, then I don't understand why that link is there. [B2] For the second term, I expanded what the first statement says. That whole first statement I am guessing has errors to begin with; however, for expanding that second term, I relied on it. For "decolonization of israeli settlements," I relied on this article original statement, "ending [...] colonization of " and the bsdmove.net statement, "Israel steals land [...] settlements" from that url. I combined those two things to be a link and term "Israeli_settlement|Israeli settlements." [B3] For "Israel West Bank Wall," likewise, I simply expanded the original statement's link "wall" to be that of the link's article title. Thus, if that term is in error, it relates to the original link being in error too because it is merely the link's article title. Thus, I supported and cited every single term i used. [C] However, I would like to discuss a greater issue. If you wish to defend the original statement, then please tell me where "Arab lands," let alone "all Arab lands," come from. Otherwise, as there is no source or citation from it, then it is false and misleading. As it is, "Arab lands," let alone "all Arab lands," does not correspond to reality in the statements at https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds. [D] from my own analysis, I think "Arab lands" is a pretty loaded language and term. Likewise, these other vague terms in the original statement are loaded. They leave it to the reader to try to guess and figure out what they mean -- that could either be something related to what corresponds to reality and truth or, on the other hand, it could be a falsehood and lead to misunderstandings. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't bother to read your wall of text. The point is, we use reliable sources. If you can find such, then it will be considered. But, if you need this much text, that suggests that you are making an argument on your own. That is original research which we don't use. O3000 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

For two terms I MERELY expanded the links to be that of the link's article title. If you have issue with that, then why are the links currently there? If you bothered to read the source, then you could see that is what I did without me having to spoon fed you guys in what makes statements. I felt compelled to do so because someone questioned me (without support and reasoning). Likewise, you are asserting I do original research without support, logic and justification. These ad hominems rather than focusing on the issues are getting mentally tiredsome and wasteful of my time. However, argue against MERELY expanding link names to be that of the link's article title. Otherwise, you are talking in circles without addressing the argument. In addition, since you also wish to defend the original statement, please tell me where "Arab lands," let alone "all Arab lands," come from, because you guys speak in falsehoods when you can't even tell me where such terms come from, lest you guys do original research while not justifying I do original research. Indeed, I supported you came up with that term out of nowhere UNLESS you can tell me where it comes from. However, you can't say absolutely anywhere my terms aren't cited, especially of the own link's article title. And it is true, it is a joke and laughable I have to spoon feed you guys a wall of text to understand a simple single sentence because you can't bother to read the single two line source code. Go ahead look, they are almost exactly the same in two parts of the single sentence, except that loaded "all Arab lands" term you falsely, self research out of nowhere UNLESS you can tell me where it comes from instead of nowhere, it is actively lying to keep it there. You may have an easier societal time in your life; however, I rather have my talkaholism rather than apparent void and null of thought, thinking, writing and talking. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Argument from analogy: Here is an analogy because you cannot be bothered to read my "wall of text," lest you become literate rather than remain however so illiterate. "This is an example of a spoon fed sentence because people cannot read two single line source codes to notice that those two lines are 2/3 the exact same." For this spoon fed sentence, "spoon fed" is a verb rather than "spoon" existing on its own as a noun. It is indeed true that "spoon" is usually a noun; however, many might not actively realize and know that. For this sentence, I also use the word, "two." Two is a number, and one can count to two by one and one, to make two. Ir is very helpful to expand on these things in detail because people cannot read the exampled text listed in this paragraph. Rather, they subscribe to illiteracy and promotion of that. It could be time constraints that make one illiterate; however, if such is the case, why do they even bother waking me up in this article, rather than go about doing what they are busy at? Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Argument from reality: [A] One of the things that bothers me is where "all Arabs lands" come from; please tell me where it comes from, such as a citation or reference. It is a loaded language term and it is excessively vague. [B] Responses: [1] You are doing original research, but i don't support and give reasons for such conclusions. Oh, i did one time, but i argued that there is a hidden agenda and thus, you dont know it, saying anything means original research. [2] I advocate illiteracy. [3] Mob and group argument: "we" don't do that here, lest this statement be an individual vote. It must be cohesive and conforming whoever is running a collective editing here. OH, Don't forget counter argument [4] reading SOURCE CODE of two single lines is incredibly difficult. It is so extremely difficult. In actuality, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE. From, [1-4] reasoning, the said request is discredited. [C] Is this article a joke? Is it reliable? Why does it use loaded language without telling me where the word comes from?

After trying to figure it out, I came up with a possible alternative to this issue. It is the following. This would align what I think is going on in here with war of words and terms.

please change:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;"

to

1. Ending its occupation in dontsayIsrael non-occupied areas, decolonization of don'tsayanythingisrael_land_somewhere, and dismantling of dontsayIsraelword_Wall

instead of the disagreed and highly contentious following:

1. Ending its occupation in Israeli-occupied territories, decolonization of Israeli settlements, and dismantling of the Israeli West Bank Wall

Again, see my comment above. Unless you have reliable and neutral sources that state in an indisputable manner that BDS meant exactly that, we can't write that this is what BDS means. By "Arab lands" they could mean Israeli-occupied territories or Palestine (region), or perhaps something in between. We can't know and we don't get to decide it. “WarKosign” 04:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read the source code. I changed [[Israeli-occupied territories/occupation]] to [[Israeli-occupied territories/Israeli-occupied territories]] and [[Israeli West Bank barrier/Wall]] to [[Israeli West Bank barrier/Israeli West Bank Wall]]. That changes the links to the link's article's title. Those are two terms. The source is itself. It is self sourced. It is changing a paraphrase "occupation" and "Wall" it its literal article title. Self sourced from paraphrase to literal term. Also, please answer my question where is "all Arab lands" sourced? Whoever wrote that is the one guilty of self research. It has absolutely no reference whereas two of my terms have self reference. Why do you keep on ignoring my argument and question? For the third term, I already mentioned the bds url; however, I cannot address this term until you answer my "all Arab lands" question. I am contending about the usage of three terms. I argued about two. And now for the third, You need to replace "all Arab lands" because it is absolutely not corresponding to anything in reality unless you can give me a source. I will concede to your argument on the term if you can give me the source. However, I am pretty sure you cannot because that term and nothing like it is in their url's mission statement page.

I think your general contention and defense for such term and original statement as I take it is that you cant trust much of what bds says, so what difference does their url's mission statement mean. It would be helpful if you gave argumentation or sources of why they cannot be trusted. However, I think your contention is personal based rather than objective if you cannot give me any argumentation with reason or sources. Do you have personal experiences with the group to create mistrust or something? I am approaching this article as someone of a third party and not involved. You appear to approaching it from a heightened level of mistrust that even what they say cannot mean something to be true. I think that is an error and bad way to go about forming this article. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The source specifically says "occupation and colonization" , "all Arab lands" and "the Wall". What they mean by these terms is a matter of interpretation. In fact, linking to Israeli-occupied territories and Israeli West Bank barrier is interpretation. While I can't think of any reason to object to the second link (is there any other wall they could be talking about? Maybe the Western wall?), it's a good question what they mean by occupation. Israeli-occupied territories is a good guess, but Israel as a whole could be a target as well, especially considering their 3rd stated goal. We don't do the interpretation. We report the fact that this is what BDSs says, clearly indicating that this is their statement and not necessarily the objective truth. “WarKosign” 07:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ap4lmtree2: Not really sure what this is all about, what bds means by Arab lands/occupied is explained on their page by them, I will paste their goal 1 here (from https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds)

      Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel. As part of its military occupation, Israel steals land and forces Palestinians into ghettos, surrounded by checkpoints, settlements and watchtowers and an illegal apartheid Wall. Israel has imposed a medieval siege on Gaza , turning it into the largest open air prison in the world. Israel also regularly carries out large-scale assaults on Gaza that are widely condemned as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I can tell you what I think it means but I won't necessarily read it in the same way as you because I'm me and you are you. We don't have to read it the same way. You can consider it a primary source document that may be interpreted by a secondary source in this or that way. So, if you can find some reputable secondary source who explains bds goals in agreement with your version of what it says then we can consider adding that to the article by way of explanation of what bds might mean by their statements. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I see now that the goal one in the article is a direct quote, word for word, from the paragraph's _headline_ rather than paragraph under that headline for goal one. It was my mistake to pass the headline and go straight to the paragraph. Thus, I concede and you guys win your war of terms argumentations. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad that that is sorted out. I restored my text that you deleted while you were editing. It's not allowed to delete someone else's text, please be more careful.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was (another) mistake to delete your text, I was stumbling in my editting. Disappointed and embarrassed about my illiteracy on that topic. I meant to delete just what i wrote, which didn't have a reply, with my concession, i didn't mean to delete text other than that, but i was stumbling in editing while coming to terms with that mistake. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 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)

So, should the "Zionism" article be included in the "Racism" category on the grounds that the subject matter of the former is not uncommonly seen as a form of the latter? If not, wouldn't that be a double standard?     ←   ZScarpia   11:15, 17 June 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 [4],[5],[6],[7],[8] 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. [9] [10] “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 [11]. 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.[12] 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 entityIsraeli regime--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)

Thank you. This vote should be disregarded for WP:NOTFORUM and SharabSalam should strike his comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Nope. that's a legit vote. That the organisation is targeting the apartheid Israeli regime not Israelis or Jews is a good reason why this isn't an anti-Semite organisation just like when people targeted the South African apartheid regime of South Africa they were not targeting the people but the regime itself.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If the problem is about the word "Zionist entity" that's because my government doesn't recognize "Israel" so we often use the word Zionist entity to refer to the Israeli regime--SharabSalam (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, no one cares what your personal views are or the views of "your government." While on WP, we're all obliged to avoid inflammatory language in describing subjects. And your "vote" is nothing more than a) an expression of your personal views about the subject and b) completely devoid of reference to policy or sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 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)
• Yes Characterizations of major elements of the movement as anti-Semitic, at the very least, have been covered in reliable sources.[13] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  that source doesnt support your claim. It does quote people who are pro-zionist saying tthatt the movement is anti-semitic. the source also states that movement insists that that its goals is to pressure the Israeli regime to return the occupied land to Palestinians and give "Palestinian citizens of Israel: full equality with Jews."--SharabSalam (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You just contradicted your own point. The source describes the views of critics who regard the movement as anti-semitic, which is exactly what I said. Any number of other sources that cover BDS also note this widespread view. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CATV doesn't say that we should categorize things just because some people believe them. It says that we should use categories for uncontroversial defining features. The Times article shows exactly the opposite: this is hotly contested claim with prominent adherents on both sides. We cover those viewpoints in the article, but adding this to a category for anti-Semitism would be, in effect, asserting controversial claim as a fact. Nblund ^talk 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wrong question - Pretty much every argument here applies equally to the categorization of Category:Anti-Zionism, which by the looks of it, was part of Category:Antisemitism for quite a while, until it was eventually removed this February. There are discussions of this issue at Category talk:Anti-Zionism going back to 2007. But it's basically the same argument, though the category has a more meaningful and logically consistent scope. GMG^talk 17:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't pay me to watchlist this page. So ping in the doubtful event I'm needed for some reason. GMG^talk 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Other editors have referred to the Categorization policy (specifically WP:CATV), but without explicitly explaining how it bears on the situation here. To quote: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." So, the question should be asked, would categorization of BDS as antisemitic be neutral or uncontroversial?     ←   ZScarpia   13:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

*Yes Category{Antisemitism is clearly appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Strike dup !vote O3000 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Then your vote hasn't changed since 13 February. :) Burrobert (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• No Burrobert (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• NoSelfstudier (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• No Boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaigns of countries by individuals or governments intended to drive policy change are not considered racist. The UK have blockaded the US and continental Europe in previous centuries. There was the boycott of 1930s Germany, the Anti Apartheid Movement campaign against South Africa, current US sanctions against many countries, some UN sanctions etc., none of which were generally considered to be racist. The campaign is against the state of Israel, not against Jews per se, which would be antisemitic. The motivation for this ascription of antisemitism is to delegitimize the campaign. That this effort has generated many anti BDS books and articles does not make it true. If some people who support the campaign express themselves in antisemitic ways or are antisemitic, that does not make the campaign antisemitic. Above all, note WP:CATV "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." This seems to me to be unanswerable. Jontel (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Background

I feel like the first paragraph of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Background is way too extensive for information that isn't directly about the BDS. Linking Arab League boycott of Israel in the sentence Zachor Legal Institute founder Marc Greendorfer argued in the Roger Williams University Law Review that the BDS movement originated in the Arab League's boycott of Israel in name, in function, in tasks, in methodology and in goals. seems enough for me. What do other users think? Encycloon (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Readers need to understand the Arab League boycott in order to understand BDS. A summary of BDS's historical antecedents is crucial. Alex Joffe's material linking BDS to antecedents during the Cold War bridges the gap. --GHcool (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Although the last sentence of the first paragraph is sort of "in the weeds." I'll remove it. --GHcool (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sense

Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic[10][11] in the form its opposition to Zionism takes,[12][13 Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase it: Some people (critics) say that BDS is antisemitic. They believe that the way that BDS opposes Zionism is antisemitic.

I agree that the sentence is phrased awkwardly, but it makes perfect sense to me. “WarKosign” 14:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)