Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Why downplay the critics

This has turned into anti-Palestinian rants. WP:NOTFORUM WP:RS WP:NPOV WP:OR O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I mean, the critics are right. This is no different to Hitler-era of boycotting of Jewish products. The whole BDS is a racket and supported by ultra anti-Semites. Can we add "anti-Semitic" on the very first line, and also Anti-Semitism as one of the goals on the inbox. Thanks. --Acceptablefreedomportal (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC) There are a few things that you should be aware of: - See the notifications at the top of this talkpage: this page is part of the ARBPIA topic area and, as such, various sanctions cover it. One of those is that editors who have been registered for less than three months or have made fewer than 500 edits may not contribute here except under very restricted circumstances. - Also see the talkpage guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)." Parts of your comment stray into "conversation about the article's subject" territory. - The Neutral Point of View policy governs how much stress can be put on different aspects of a subject, which affects how and whether the suggestions made in your final sentence can be implemented. Regards     ←   ZScarpia   15:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC) You haven't addressed a single part of my query. You've tiptoed around it by citing policies I already know. I know I can't edit the page because it says "View Source" in my case. When that changes, I know I'll have met the criteria to edit - but I still would like to discuss changes and attitudes and that is what I am doing now. --Acceptablefreedomportal (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC) There is a procedure for non-qualifieds to request edits, I would use that. If your requested edits are a reflection of the kind of comments that you made above then best not waste your time.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) By "this page", I meant this talkpage. The 500/30 rule's application is limited to articles themselves. If you haven't done so, best go and and read the ARBPIA rules. A software script is in place to stop unqualified editors from editing the article itself; one could have been put in place to do the same on the talkpage, except unqualified editors are allowed to edit here in certain circumstances. The rules would actually have allowed for your comments here to just be deleted. The reason I didn't do that is because I didn't want to make you feel as though you'd been administered a smack on the chops just after registering on WIkipedia. To qualify, you don't have to make 500 'big' edits (though it's frowned on to game the system by doing something like adding and removing the same text 250 times).     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Well yeah I could have welcomed 500 new users I guess, all legit, all constructive!! But damn time-consuming and painful for the fingers I am sure! No intention of doing that though. Even so there is still the time-frame obstacle. Basically I'm seeing that I can revert vandalism, correct typos someone else made etc. but not really influence content. That said if I make a constructive edit with a source that a *qualified* editor could have made, and someone reverts in on account of ARBPIA, then he/she is the one GAME-ing the system, not me. I would additionally be supported by WP:IAR and many others dotted about the place. It's all down to knowing the policies, and the personal interpretation of the admins. Anyhow, BDS in all reliable sources is confirmed anti-Semitic, for it boycotts produce for no other reason than the producer is Jewish. Jews don't occupy the West Bank - Jews OWN Israel, it is in the Quran, the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles. --Acceptablefreedomportal (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC) If you have something constructive to say, say that. You can try to influence content by way of the procedure I mentioned. If you wish to add content it needs to be supported by reliable and reputable third party sources.Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Lede proposal The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (also known as BDS) is a Hamas-ledAnti-Semitic harassment campaign promoting various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets what the campaign describes as Israel's obligations under their own law, defined as withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and "respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties". The campaign is organized and coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee. --Acceptablefreedomportal (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) This is surely a joke. There is no way that Wikipedia is going to describe BDS as antisemitic, and you don't even provide any citation to attempt to justify this smear. And none of the three links in your first sentence suggests that BDS is "Hamas-led" - quite the contrary, in fact. This ridiculously biased proposed shows clearly why you should not be permitted to edit this article even after you have passed the thirty-day 500 edit criteria. RolandR (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)Strongly Oppose - All the sources say Palestinian-led as does our article and you propose changing it to Hamas-led which none of the sources say. Also, none of the sources say Anti-Semitic, which you have added. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Hold steady. Come the day I "qualify" to edit, there will be nothing you or anyone else can do to change that. So what if I made the above edit? Be bold is one of Wikipedia's mottos. But then I have also read BRD so if I get reverted, I would come straight here, so what is wrong with that? Besides, I am happy to have this discussion anyhow without touching the article, so please stop with these passive-aggressive pot shots. On the topic: Hamas is known to support BDS, and even if it is widely Palestinian, that alone makes it Anti-Semitic, because aren't the Palestinians a nation who want to take over Israeli land as their own? Come on now, wake up. --Acceptablefreedomportal (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Or *PRO*-Palestinian - I guess it depends from whose angle you are looking at it. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's turned into irrelevant nonsense, regardless of the angle.Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've no position on the matter, and can hardly follow it even having read it. I'm just saying, the label states "anti-Palestinian rant" whereby it looks to me like a typical Israeli-Palestinian beef. One side no worse than the other. Oh well. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As of today, Acceptablefreedomportal has been blocked indefinitely.     ←   ZScarpia   18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Omar Barghouti

According to https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/no-omar-barghouti-is-not-a-co-founder-of-the-israel-boycott-movement-bds-1.489828 Omar Barghouti isn't a co-founder of BDS. Perhaps the article should refer to that. Mcljlm (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The president of NGO Monitor isnt a reliable source. nableezy - 23:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

I would like to add Tom Morello and Marc Lamont Hill to the list of three people that support BDS and improve the verbiage of the paragraph. It isn’t actually a list of 103 artists. Some of them are actors, authors, activists, etc. That’s it. Jasonagastrich (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is the same source that is already cited. [1]Jasonagastrich (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

French revolution

Does anybody have a reliable source linking the BDS movement and its alleged motto to the French revolution? The claims seems unlikely. --GHcool (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think those words were the central tenets of the French revolution.ImTheIP (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Things to restore

I propose restoring the following:

• "Participants in events are sometimes demanded to declare solidarity with the Palestinian cause.<ref name=rollingstone/>" — The reason given for removing this sentence from the "Methods" section ("the matisyahu controversy is already described in teh article") is insufficient.
• Critics say that the BDS movement is [[antisemitic]], is [[Legitimacy of Israel|delegitimizing Israel]], and is similar to the [[Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses]]. — The new version in the lead is wishy-washy and downplays the seriousness of the criticism.
• Universities have been primary targets of the BDS movement, according to English professor [[Cary Nelson]], "because faculty and students can become passionate about justice, sometimes without adequate knowledge about the facts and consequences. ... [U]niversities also offer the potential for small numbers of BDS activists to leverage institutional status and reputation for a more significant cultural and political impact."<ref>Cary Nelson and Gabriel Brahm, ''The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel'' (MLA Members for Scholars Rights, 2015), 13. Qtd. in Pessin, Introduction, ''Anti-Zionism on Campus'', 6.</ref>

--GHcool (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

1. The website that Rolling Stones cites writes "Rototom Sunsplash, after having repeatedly sought dialogue given the unavailability of the artist for comment, in order to clearly declare himself regarding the war and in particular the right of the Palestinian people to have their own State, has decided to cancel the performance of Matisyahu scheduled for August 22". So we know that one Jewish American rapper was cancelled for failure of "declaring himself" but we cannot say that it has happened more than once. Also, the reason Matisyahu was singled out by BDS activists wasn't because he was Jewish - it was because his lyrics incited hatred against Palestinians. That is not yet covered in the article but should be.

2. No objection to that being restored.

3. No idea what point Nelson was trying to convey and its an odd quote. BDS targets universities because university faculty and students are ignorant and passionate? ImTheIP (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It isn't our job to interpret Nelson. It is our job to include him as a voice from a reliable source on the topic. I'll restore it within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right that Nelson is a reliable source. But the question is how related the quote is to BDS' academic boycott? Nelson writes "because faculty and students can become passionate about justice, sometimes without adequate knowledge about the facts and consequences" which to me, refers to the mental state of "faculty and students". He is saying that they are "passionate about justice" and "without adequate knowledge about the facts and consequences". That doesn't describe what the boycott is. The second part of the quote also is not related to BDS' academic boycott: "[U]niversities also offer the potential for small numbers of BDS activists to leverage institutional status and reputation for a more significant cultural and political impact" It tells us something about "institutional status and reputation" of universities but nothing about what the boycott is.

You must understand that we should first describe the subject, then we describe what cricicism exist. Not the other way around.ImTheIP (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Although Nelson is critical of BDS, he is describing it dispassionately in the quoted statement. The quoted remark isn't a criticism. It is analysis based on research. --GHcool (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But he is not describing the academic boycott per se, he is describing what he thinks about pro-Palestinian campus activists. He thinks they are passionate and ignorant. I can surely find sources that claim that they are rational and well-informed. It just isn't the topic of that section.ImTheIP (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Most success

"BDS has found the most success in university settings." I can not find that in the source. ImTheIP (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I removed it. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lets discuss

@GHcool: Why did you remove the paragraph I wrote about Matisyahu? Editing like that is quite unkind! ImTheIP (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, it was cited to an unreliable source and an irrelevant editorial. Find a reliable source (for example, the New York Times or an academically published book or journal) that has this information and I will support its inclusion. --GHcool (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You could have started a discussion on this talk page. Removing well-sourced paragraphs written only a day ago is not nice. I really don't appreciate you deleting large swathes of text I just wrote. The main facts are echoed in the article on Al-Jazera, that Matisyahu had played for IDF and AIPAC and so on. But even so, what Wikipedia rule would prevent sourcing the facts from boicotisrael.net? ImTheIP (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for reverting without discussing first. That being said, boicotisrael.net is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. I'll restore it based on the Al-Jazera editorial and a Forward editorial. --GHcool (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Can we also discuss how to best organize this article? I have many ideas and some criticism I want to hear if it conflicts with what you think.ImTheIP (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So my main critique is that the article is poorly structured. I imagine the goal of a reader is to find out what BDS is. So the page should first answer "What is BDS?" Then "Who is the people behind BDS?", "What does BDS do?", "Where does BDS do it?", "Why does BDS do it?" and of course also "Why is BDS controversial?" Attempting to answer "Why is BDS controversial?" before explaining what it is doesn't work. Right now, the criticism and opponents' voices are everywhere in the article from the first line to the last. I think it is unfair to not let the organization "speak for itself" before all the criticism is heaped on it.

That is how we structure articles about other organizations and what I propose we do here. Objective facts first: what it is, what it does and why, who leads it, what campaigns it runs and then all opponents views.

BDS' campaigns, in particular, are not covered in sufficient detail. They occupy less than two screenfuls but the article is over 30 screenfuls long. That can't be right because running campaigns is all BDS does. Therefore, I'm a little dissatisfied that you removed most of the subsections from "Campaigns and activities" section. I was going to add more material there but haven't had time to research yet. Plus, the subsection headings contains the names of the campaigns and helps the reader navigate.

I also don't understand your argument about self-published sources? They are as far as I know usable for uncontroversial statements about the subject. For example, the natural source to use for describing BDS' boycotting guidelines is of course its own policy documents.ImTheIP (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Opponents voices are just as valuable as adherents voices. Take the Boycotts of Israel article for example. Opponents of boycotts are just as capable of describing the phenomenon dispassionately as adherents.

Feel free to add more material about BDS campaigns, but BE SURE TO CITE RELIABLE SOURCES. Self-published sources by BDS websites themselves not covered in the mainstream media or in academic articles are not sufficient. I have no objection to adding more material cited to sources that are acceptable. A subsection for ever one- or two-sentence summary of a campaign seems excessive. Subsections make sense if a campaign is three or four paragraphs long (like the Eurovision section). Anything shorter than that needlessly clutters the table of contents and actually hinders the reader from navigating article effectively.

My argument against self-published sources is identical to the one given by Wikipedia guidelines:

"Anyone can create a personal web page ... or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ..., content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications [emphasis in the original]. ... [I]f the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

If the statements about the subject are uncontroversial, then they will be reported in an independent, reliable source. If BDS has boycotting guidelines worthy of publication on Wikipedia, they will be published in an independent, reliable source. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Boycotts of Israel article isn't an article about an organization which this article is. Note that this article is structured very differently from Anti-Defamation League, B'Tselem, or Human Rights Watch which are three other well-known human rights groups. I guess some deviation is ok but not so much that the page essentially devolves into a smear campaign of the organization.

I think that short sections for each campaign makes it easier to navigate the page. It also shows the reader what the names of the campaigns are. For example, "Derail Veolia and Alstom" is the name of the campaign against Veolia and Alstom. That information isn't on the page anymore. Furthermore, the campaigns should be organized chronologically so that it clear which have been terminated/are dormant and which are active. The Eurovision 2019 campaign is just one of at least two dozens that BDS has run, but the current structure makes it seem like that campaign was their most important one.

For similar reasons, I would not be in favor of squishing all small sections in "Responses by other governments" into one big "Other governmental respones" section or the ones in "Opposition" to one "Other opposition" section.

Regarding self-published sources, please see WP:ABOUTSELF. Policy documents are WP:PRIMARY sources and are usable to explain organizations' positions if they aren't under dispute. See f.e Anti-Defamation League#Political_positions which is almost entirely sourced to press-releases and other pages on ADL's website.ImTheIP (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you that sections help navigate the page, but I am willing to compromise. I made a mockup of how the "Campaigns and activities" section could look like without cluttering the table of contents. Check it out here and let me know if that works for you. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes that works for me (I wasn't aware of that syntax). Do you suggest the same structure for the "Responses by other governments" section which is also getting very long? ImTheIP (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I reorganized it. --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons

The last sentence of the lead makes a direct comparison between BDS and the Nazi boycott of jewish businesses:

Some critics say the BDS movement is antisemitic, questions the legitimacy of Israel, and is similar to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.[13][14][15]

However, when looking at the references, the only mention of Nazis are the commentators writing how it's offensive, incorrect and inappropriate for BDS (and left wing supporters of BDS) to compare the actions of the Isreali government to the actions of Nazis. There is no claim that the BDS itself is like Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.238.40 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I added two sources. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

UAW

@Aroma Stylish: Can you explain your edit? I researched, and the local chapter supported the BDS movement. But the central organization overturned the vote after pressure. It should be detailed. ImTheIP (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cartoons

Here are two cartoons which I think could be added to this page: [2], [3] They are down by Latuff who has drawn a lot of images about BDS and Israel. ImTheIP (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. For every Latuff drawing, we will have to add a anti-boycott/pro-Israel drawing. This will make the article crazy, adding more heat than light. --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. I've been trying to find such images myself, but it is very hard to find appropriately licensed cartoons. These two by Latuff are the only ones I've found in genre. ImTheIP (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You might be in favor of making this article crazy and adding more heat than light, but I am not. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GHcool, here is no place for cartoons. Pahlevun (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I thought the illustrations were interesting (especially because Latuff has been accused of anti-semitism), but I'm not going to press the issue since there's no consensus. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Other pages

I noticed that there are a lot of "spillover pages" related to BDS:

• Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
• Boycotts of Israel
• Academic boycott of Israel
• Disinvestment from Israel
• Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
• Israeli Apartheid Week

It should be organized better I think... Not sure how.ImTheIP (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Two more pages: Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott and Israel Anti-Boycott Act. ImTheIP (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-BDS legislation

I'm working on a new page called Anti-BDS legislation to gather information about anti-BDS laws. The idea is to eventually be able to move unimportant details from this page to that page. The reason I created it in my personal namespace is because administrators sometimes delete pages in the main namespace without giving you any notice. Please let me know what you think.ImTheIP (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is sized 155,752 bytes at the moment, and I think it is a good idea to split it. It would be nice if the article distinguishes between proposed laws such as this and enacted laws like as this one until one can simply understand the differenceIn order to include pro-BDS attempts, I suggest using more inclusive/neutral names like Legality of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement or Laws regarding Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I also found that doi:10.1080/20414005.2019.1672134 is freely available as an academic source on this matter. Pahlevun (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Thanks for starting this, ImTheIP. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! Regarding the article title, it's not set in stone but I think anti-BDS legislation/law(s) is fair (legislation is a synonym to law or laws). Legality of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is quite long and most of the laws about BDS aren't challenging its legality. Rather they are ordinances that governs public authorities relations with organizations affiliated with the BDS movement. For example, many of the American anti-BDS laws prevent state offices from doing business with companies that boycott Israel.

It also seems like anti-BDS laws are used both by pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources. Examples of pro-Israeli sources: Jewish Virtual Library, Jewish Journal, Christians United for Israel, Israel Nation News. Examples of pro-Palestinian sources: The Electronic Intifada, Peoples Dispatch, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. "anti-BDS laws" and "anti-BDS legislation" combined nets about 100k hits on Google.ImTheIP (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Aroma Stylish courteously asked on my talk page why I have reorganized the content on this page, so let me explain my thinking. Government bodies have responded to calls for boycotts against Israel in three different ways; by restricting BDS' ability to campaign, by condemning BDS and by passing motions that could be seen as favoring BDS.

The first category of responses is the enactment of anti-BDS laws. These laws are explicitly targeting BDS and other Israel-boycotters. For example, by preventing BDS from participating in events sponsored by city councils. There has been great debate about such laws and several court cases. The topic is interesting from a legal standpoint. Does such laws infringe upon the freedom of expression? Are they justified? This topic clearly deserves its own article.

The second category of responses are resolutions condemning BDS as anti-Semitism, discrimination, etc. Examples of such condemnations are the German Bundestag's condemnation of BDS and the Austrian National Council's similar condemnation. These resolutions are for the most part not "laws", but they are obviously "anti-BDS" and they are often followed by ordinances that are real anti-BDS laws. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, the line between non-binding motion and "real law" is blurry - a parliamentary proclamation can be both a condemnation and a law.

The third category of responses are motions that causes partial boycotts of Israel or divestment from Israel. Examples include the British city councils that passed motions to boycott goods from Israeli settlements. Such motions are of course welcome by BDS but are not per se indicative of government support of BDS.

Now the question is how to organize all this content. Imho, the BDS-related pages aren't all that well-organized. My proposal is that we move content from the first and second category to the newly created Anti-BDS laws article. That article should be about law and how governments have tried to combat BDS. The third category can remain on this page for now. But it should also be "moved someplace" in the future. For example, this

On 7 February 2019, Ninna Hedeager Olsen (EL), mayor of technical and environmental affairs in Copenhagen, gave an award to three BDS members known as the "Humboldt 3", including Ronnie Barkan.

is a mostly irrelevant detail that doesn't belong in the article. The article should give a fair overview of BDS and interested readers can read other articles to learn about, say, what awards BDS supporters have received from Danish officials.ImTheIP (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why do you want to leave only pro-BDS (local) government responses in this article? Just move all government responses to a different article per balance and NPOV. Don't cherry-pick.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I just explain that? If there is a page called Anti-BDS laws, then that page should contain content about anti-BDS laws and BDS litigation. Since duplication is bad, that content shouldn't also be on this page. Therefore it should be deleted from this page. I mean, the point of Wikipedia pages isn't to list X persons that are "pro" and Y persons hat are "con" and X must always equal Y or else the sky falls. The point is to describe various encyclopedic subjects.ImTheIP (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are leaving in the main BDS article only POSITIVE government responses to BDS. You don't understand why this is a problem???--Aroma Stylish (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I just proposed that Anti-BDS laws be merged into Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. That should solve both of your issues. I'm also going to move the positive laws to the "reactions" article. --GHcool (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fond of that. "Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" is a very broad title and can include almost anything. I'd rather we keep article subjects more focused than that.ImTheIP (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Aroma Stylish was a sock puppet. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm going through the criticism section and fixing some oddities. E.g: "The Australian attributes antisemitic activity to BDS supporters, including the publication of material on the Internet that denies the Holocaust and promotes attacks against "Jews and Jew lovers" This all seem to be from one back-and-forth on an SJP Facebook page for a rally in Sydney in 2013: [4] Undue, and only peripherally connected to BDS. ImTheIP (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Some see similarity, or exact resemblance, between BDS and historical acts of discrimination against Jewish minorities, such as the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses." Calling BDS an "exact resemblance" of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses is an extreme claim and I've been unable to locate any source that makes it. The only source I've found making the comparsion is the Bundestag resolution, but it uses the phrasing "reminiscent of the Nazi-era boycott of Jewish businesses" or "revived memories of the Nazi motto 'Don’t buy from Jews.'" Not quite the same as an "exact resemblance." ImTheIP (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Some argue that BDS is a significant step in the creeping normality of antisemitism. The resulting atmosphere threatens Jewish students on American college campuses." The sources don't seem to make those claims. Lea Speyer just cites the AMCHA report. ImTheIP (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The claim of "exact resemblance" can be found in Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance, By P. Mendes, Springer 2014, page 89 and in Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, By Anthony Julius, Oxford University Press 2010, page 478-484. I don't own those particular books so I can't check the references, but it seems unfair to remove this claim without checking them.

Anyone can see that the last paragraph of the New York Times source makes the claim of creeping normality threatening Jewish students. You can reword this if you choose, but it is unfair to remove it completely. It does not cite the AMCHA report.

Please restore these two at your earliest convenience. If you do not, I will. I'll also add more sources from Anti-Zionism on Campus verifying these allegations. --GHcool (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've researched both books a lot. Most of the pages referenced from Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England are available online on Google Books. The only page on which a discussion about BDS could appear, and which is not online, is page 482. Given the general tone of the book, to me, it seem unlikely that a comparison between BDS and Nazi Germany's boycott would be made on that page. I have also attempted keyword searches using Google Books, which often gives you an idea about what is written even if Google Books doesn't reveal the pages themselves. But none of the keywords "bds", "nazi", "germany", "resemblance" or "exact" match page 482. The earlier phrasing of that bullet point was "Seeing similarities, or exact identification, between BDS and ... the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses." but "exact identification" doesn't appear on the page either.

After some more digging, I found it in Mendes book! This is what he writes: Julius (2010) argues that the boycott campaign has a nasty historical resonance given the earlier Nazi boycott of Jews in Germany, and the long-standing Arab boycott of Israel dating back to 1948. He calls the boycott 'the latest in a millennial series of campaigns to isolate Jewish communities', and labels it as 'continuous with historical anti-Semitic discourse and practice' (p. 483). But Mendes actually distorts what Julius writes on page 483: The academic boycott was a denial of Israeli academics' freedom of expression; it was an attempt at censorship; it did not derive from any criteria capable of being applied universally; it was but the latst in a millennial series of campaigns to isolate Jewish communities - in this case, the Jewish community living in Israel; ... and it was continuous with historical anti-Semitic discourse and practice.

The connection to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses is thin. Certainly, neither author makes the claim of "exact resemblance." However, I think Julius' criticism fits in our section about the academic boycott. ImTheIP (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the NYT article reads: "The overall culture of targeting Israel led to targeting Jewish students," said Natalie Charney, student president of the U.C.L.A. chapter of Hillel. "People say that being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic. The problem is the anti-Israel culture in which we are singling out only the Jewish state creates an environment where it’s O.K. to single out Jewish students." Not sure I see how Charney's quote has anything to do with creeping normality nor BDS for that matter? ImTheIP (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I restored the Julius claim, but removed the offending "exact resemblance" clause. I consider that matter closed.

ImTheIP quoted the last paragraph of the NY Times paragraph accurately. I rescind my argument. I will restore the claim though and cite it to a different source. --GHcool (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the bullet point isn't that it claims that BDS's boycott is anti-Semitic or that it has historical antecedents. The problem is that it connects BDS's boycott with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. Julius doesn't make that connection. Mendes claims that Julius argues that "the boycott campaign has a nasty historical resonance given the earlier Nazi boycott of Jews in Germany." But, as shown, that is incorrect. Neither source supports the connection between BDS and the Nazi boycott. Neither does the Wiesenthal report claim that BDS is like the Nazi boycott. Since the sources doesn't make the connection, Wikipedia shouldn't either.

Can you please add quotes from the sources (Nelson's Conspiracy Pedagogy on Campus and Brahm's Slouching toward the City That Never Stops) to show how these support the second bullet point about "creeping normality"? I don't own these books so I can't verify the statements myself. ImTheIP (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the most relevant Nelson quote. I reread the Brahms article and realize that it doesn't mention BDS specifically. It only other forms of antisemitism. --GHcool (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't see how the quote corroborates the claim. I infer that Nelson doesn't actually use the term "creeping normality" in his text because you would have cited that passage if he did. In fact, it looks to me that his criticism is about the behavior of BDS supporters on campuses and not about the movement itself. ImTheIP (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll change "creeping normaility" to match the quote. BDS supporters make up the BDS movement. Furthermore, as the footnote explains, the Nelson article details a lot of BDS activity. Unless you want me to republish the entire article in this footnote, I'm afraid that this will have to suffice. --GHcool (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your change changed the meaning of the text too. a significant step in creating an "anti-Jewish atmosphere in public spaces" on university campuses has nothing to do with creeping normality. I.e both the meaning of the bullet point and its supporting sources have now been changed. Futhermore, the quote from Nelson does not mention BDS. It is therefore not apparent that he is criticizing BDS and not just describing an "anti-Jewish atmosphere" caused by other factors. And roughy the same criticism already appears in the article, just phrased alighly differently: As of March 2018, resolutions to endorse BDS had not had any effect on college investment decisions, according to Nelson. The effect they do have, he says, is the promotion of anti-Israel (and sometimes antisemitic) sentiment within student bodies, faculty, and academic departments.

I also made some rough word counting and found that about 30% of the words in the article are spent describing BDS, 40% are spent criticizing BDS, and 30% are spent defending BDS or used for other purposes. That is, the article is very imbalanced and I think WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE applies here. ImTheIP (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Those proportions,if correct would be way out of whack and violate WP:Undue, ergo neutrality in giving more space to criticism than to the outline of the topic and the history of the movement. So either one précises the offending section back, or reduces the variety of material.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Having read the whole page, I now beg to differ. There's a lot of room for improvement but on balance it is more balanced than I would expect. By the way, while I think Norman Finkelstein's analysis, critical of BDS, is more convincing than any other, it is referred to youtube interviews, which I don't think is permitted. I wouldn't therefore erase it, because his analysis is cogent, he himself is a major figure whose opinion certainly needs to be outlined, but that should be done by referencing it to an RS text.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The paraphrase of the interviews ignores the subtleties of his distinction. He is more nuanced what what we have stated.

'I support the BDS, but I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they're explicit on their goals, and their goal has to include recognition of Israel.' He also says not BDS but a large part of the movement aspires to eliminate Israel.(17 minutes into the Imperial College interview with Frank Barat)Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• The connection to terrorism section is silly. You can insin uate, poison wells, use Chines e whispers, nudge and hint etc., but unless there is legal, documented indications of indictments, etc., this remains just polemical smearing, and gossip should not be documented on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Jonathan Schanzer's views suggesting a terrorist connection between Hamas and American BDS leaders, had it any substance, would have been acted on by legal and state decisions, as the US has on numerous occasions with other Americans for whom indictments have be laid for such a connection. There does not appear to be any follow up by the Justice department, and therefore that is just an assertion without any legal standing, on the looks of it.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism, my main complaint is that it is trite and shallow. 50 different quotes from celebrities and academics all saying that BDS is anti-Semitic and Roger Waters is a bully isn't useful. It's more interesting if the criticism delves into why BDS is anti-Semitic. At the same time, important criticism about BDS's anti-normalization strategy is missing from the article. ImTheIP (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but disingenuously I tend to think stacking a lot of 'trite and shallow' quips in grossly underestimates the intelligence of readers who actually get beyond the first paragraph>: it looks pathetic in its mustered ranks of slapstick spouters. To be serious, you are again correct about quality: an encyclopedic article should look for quality, cogent arguments succinctly described, rather than reel off, hoping to win over readers by sheer tedious volume, names and their memes.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the BDS "resembles the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses" from the lead. Certainly, some critics think that (although I haven't found any reliable sources except for the Bundestag resolution), but most critics don't go that far because it's over the top.ImTheIP (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a personal note. Most heated analogies of this kind with the past just underline the writers' lack of knowledge of history, and one should take this into account when judging the quality of the articles we use for inclusion on this sensitive area, where sources are subject to strong rhetorical spin. My generation actively boycotted South Africa, even at the cost of missing great cricket fixtures, When at the time Desmond Tutu likened the global silence about what that racist state was doing to the indigenous blacks to what happened when Nazis oppressed Jews and where the world's response was silence, Pik Botha, a dyed in the wool racist, retorted that the analogy was deeply offensive to the country's hundred thousand citizens of Jewish origin.(Michael Zwerin, Swing Under the Nazis: Jazz as a Metaphor for Freedom, Rowman & Littlefield 2000 ISBN 978-0-815-41075-1 p.123) There is some truth in what Botha said, but it is also true that a minority of Jews there understood the force of the analogy: from Gandhi's early days there, where his closest non-Indian advisors were Jewish, acutely aware of what prejudice means, through to modern times when they formed a significant core element of the opposition to apartheid racial discrimination, while remaining true to Zionism (the agony of this contradiction was tragically played out with l'affaire Goldstone). All of our reportage is from newspaper hysteria written in ignorance of real history-which is deeply complex-, but instrumentalizing it for political ends.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: Please read MOS:BQ. Long quotes should be formatted using the blockquote style to make them easier to read. Regarding your restoration of Some argue that BDS is a significant step in creating an "anti-Jewish atmosphere in public spaces" on university campuses and in classrooms. ..., that criticism is, as I pointed out, already present higher up in the article. Why should the same points be made multiple times, only phrased slightly differently? You didn't respond to my arguments for over a week, thus I assumed you were ok with my proposed changes. But if not, can you explain what your objections are? Same thing for the lead changes you reverted without any comment. ImTheIP (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I am very busy and don't have time to respond to everything on the BDS talk page. Let's just do some horse trading and get this over with. I'm willing to let go of the anti-Jewish atmophere stuff in the criticism section if you are willing to keep the lead as it currently stands. --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we are not politicians bargaining over the next budget proposal. You cannot reasonably expect to control the article content if you don't have time to participate in discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Liberal Zionism

@GHcool: Can you motivate your changes? As you can see, the section is very much related to the "BDS wants to destroy Israel by flooding it with Palestinian refugees"-argument so, in my opinion, the section is related to BDS's philosophy and goals and it makes no sense separating it. On the contrary, it could perhaps be merged with the "Right of return" section, but that section is already quite long.

I also wonder why you changed from "liberal Zionism" to "progressive Zionism"? It doesn't match the language used in the sources. Salaita, Beinart (who calls himself a "liberal Zionist"), Maira and Weiss use the term "liberal Zionism", while Barghouti calls it "the so-called Zionist left."

I also don't get why you are removing "unilluminating" quotes. For example, in Barghouti finds this idea of distinguishing between Israel and Israel's conduct preposterous: "as if one could have opposed South African apartheid without being 'against South Africa,' or as if one could join a campaign against Saudi Arabian oppression of women, say, without being against Saudi Arabia!" Barghouti argues by analogy, opposing Israel's oppression against Palestinians, without opposing Israel, is as silly as opposing Saudi Arabia's oppression of women without opposing Saudi Arabia. The analogy is part of the argument. ImTheIP (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, we can debate the label "liberal" vs. "progressive" if you want. I prefer "progressive" since it implies a more modern left-leaning political ideology, whereas "liberal" could imply a the philosophical outlook of Adam Smith, etc. Barghouti's wording is more appropriate in this respect. Frankly, you can revert it back to "liberal" and I won't protest.

I made this edit because the debate that Beinart began over "Zionist BDS" is a sort of niche controversy among American Jews that doesn't really matter much to the broader discussion of BDS by BDS's actual adherents. I'm happy to include this information in the article, but I don't think it is representative of anyone who support BDS as articulated by the Barghoutis of the world. That's why I think it belongs at the bottom, as a sort of side discussion.

The unilluminating quotes just lengthen the article unnecessarily and turn it into a WP:QUOTEFARM. There is no point in briefly paraphrasing a quotation and then follow it with the long quotation itself. The Wikipedia style guide recommends a different approach: keeping the paraphrase and citing the source. --GHcool (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The topic of the section is BDS supporters' critique of liberal Zionism and of parts of the peace movement. Beinart was a good representative of that view - "balancing between two extremes" - but now he has rejected it and he favors binationalism instead. Supporters' invocation of the "White moderate" to describe this position is not inaccurate, but a conscious attempt to align themselves with social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. Like MLK theorized that White moderates were more concerned with order than with justice, they theorize that liberal Zionists are more concerned with keeping Israel Jewish than with justice. This distinguishes the PA from BDS, where the former says "everything is negotiable" and BDS say "our rights are not negotiable." ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

@GHcool: Why did you remove this para? Most of the sources that describe BDS's background/roots discusses the Oslo agreements and the Second Intifada. That discussion is now lost. ImTheIP (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed it because it was irrelevant and POV. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

POV may be your opinion but it requires an argument. Ziadah, Arraf, Hitchcock, Maira, Barghouti, and Marfleet, all see the Oslo agreements and the Second Intifada as important forces leading to the formation of the BDS movement. Thus, the paragraph is not irrelevant. ImTheIP (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You may write that Oslo and the Second Intifada were important forces leading up to the BDS movement. You may not rewrite the history of Oslo and the history of the Second Intifada in this article. You certainly may not rewrite it in a way that makes Israel look like settlements were the issue that broke the peace process or that Palestinians oppose Israel nonviolently after 2005. --GHcool (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. We agree that the failure of Oslo is relevant to this article. The next step is for you to explain which of the statements in the five-sentence paragraph you deleted that you disagree with. Because I believe the statements in it were all well-sourced. You can consult the sources I listed (Ziadah, Arraf, Hitchcock, Maira, Barghouti, Mazen, and Marfleet) and see that their descriptions of the post-Oslo years matches the paragraph I wrote - both in style and in content. ImTheIP (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not agree that the failure of Oslo is relevant to this article. Secondly, I do not own any of those books. Judging by their titles, none of those books are about the recent history of Israel. They are about anti-Israel activism. Let's keep the BDS article about BDS. An article on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process already exists. --GHcool (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If you don't own those books and are unable to use Google Books you can ask me for supporting quotations. You may also request help at WP:REX. If you don't believe a (short) description of the failure of Oslo is relevant, then, given that I have listed a large number of authors that clearly do believe that it is relevant, you have to explain why. ImTheIP (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevancy is not the only factor here. It must also be NPOV. We will not use Wikipedia to echo activists' biased views of the peace process in articles where they do not belong. --GHcool (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion can't be productive unless you clarify your position. Regardless of supposed "bias," can you please indicate whether you believe a short description of the failure of the Oslo peace process is relevant to the article or not? ImTheIP (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Check out my sandbox where I made what would be an acceptable Background section. If the majority accepts it, I'll move it to the BDS article. --GHcool (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I don't object to the content, but I do object to the order of the content. A majority of sources associate BDS with the anti-apartheid movement - a minority with the Arab League's boycott. Sections should lead with the mainstream views, then the critics views and then alternative views. One source you cite acknowledges that: While the Palestinian BDS movement has incorporated some of the economic elements of the Arab League boycott, its overall strategy is more akin to, and was actually inspired by, the African National Congress’ (“ANC”) campaign to economically, culturally, and academically boycott the apartheid regime in South Africa. ImTheIP (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Background sections should be in chronological order. The boycott against Jews in the British Mandate came before the Oslo Accords. --GHcool (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no such rule. The overarching principle is NPOV. NPOV means that mainstream views should be described before those that aren't mainstream. ImTheIP (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

My sources' views are in the mainstream. Mainstream does not necessarily mean "majority of sources." Wikipedia doesn't need rules against writing brief historical background sections in some sort of Christopher Nolan avant garde, nonlinear way. --GHcool (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Policy says reflect a balance of sources, that is exactly mainstream, not your opinion about what is mainstream.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: This diff is in violation of the 1R-rule. Please self-revert. Please also revert this diff which was done in bad faith since you knew both me and Selfstudier opposed it. The text you have attributed to Greendorfer in the first diff is incorrect since neither the US nor the EU has adopted IHRA's definition. In the US it is the State Department that has adopted the definition and the EU hasn't adopted it at all. The main point of Greendorfer's article is that BDS is national origin discrimination - not that it is anti-Semitic. ImTheIP (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My appologies. I self-reverted. I assure you that it wasn't in bad faith. --GHcool (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert? I added Greendorfer's argument where it belongs - in the "Singling out Israel" section. And again, the Working Definition hasn't been adopted by the U.S. or the E.U. ImTheIP (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GHcool, please discuss edits that you know are contentious on this talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Groups Inside BDS

I think this bit should be fitted for Wikipedia and added.

It is from “Is B.D.S. Anti-Semitic? A Closer Look at the Boycott Israel Campaign“ by the New York Times

The B.D.S. National Committee’s members, for example, include the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine. The council includes several groups designated by the United States as terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Klorg (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That material could fit in the section Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Connections_to_terrorism but you have to find some sources for it. ImTheIP (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias Language

“Philip Mendes of Monash University distinguishes between Jews who recognize Palestinian rights and support Jewish-Arab dialogue“

This is a sentence which is absolutely bias and doesn’t belong in a Wikipedia article. First of all, supporting BDS is equated with recognizing Palestinian rights. Second of all, Jewish-Arab dialogue can and is many times achieved without BDS. The use of the paragraph saying Jews have to support BDS to support Palestinian rights and Jewish-Arab dialogue deserves no place here in its current form. It should be between “Jews which are for and against BDS”, but even that distinguishes Jews as loyal to Israel. Being Shia Muslims aren’t usually considered loyal to Iran, this seems deeply disingenuous. The Klorg (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You totally misunderstand what Mendes is saying here. Rather than equating recognition of Palestinian rights with support for BDS, he in fact argues the opposite. He asserts that "about 40-45% of Jews support Israel without qualification, about 50-55% support a two state solution upholding both Israeli and Palestinian national rights and favour open debate on Israeli policies, and less than 1% hold anti-Zionist views", and he is distinguishing between the 50-55% (who he claims do not support BDS) and the 1%. I don't agree with either his assumed statistics, or with his hostile characterisation of anti-Zionist Jews. But he is a notable academic and the comment is reliably sourced. RolandR (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for writing this sentence awkwardly. I clarified its meaning in this edit. Thank you both. --GHcool (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add an exact page number and a quote from Anti-Zionism on Campus supporting the text. The money quote from Mendes' 2013 essay is: There has been a long history of anti-Semitism in parts of the radical Left whereby a small number of unrepresentative token Jews are opportunistically encouraged to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people. His point is not overly nuanced. ImTheIP (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Misquoting Barghouti

This revert was improper. Barghouti does not say "apartheid was abolished in South Africa, so it can be abolished in Israel too." What he is saying that the South Africa campaign was successful in the 1980s so the Israel campaign can be successful in the 2020s. Feel free to quote Barghouti directly, but we may not claim in Wikipedia's voice that Israel is an apartheid. --GHcool (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We're not claiming that Israel is apartheid. We're claiming that Barghouti is claiming that Israeli apartheid can be abolished. And it's ironic that you're telling me to "quote Barghouti" given the number of quotes you have deleted from this page using the explanation "unilluminating quote". ImTheIP (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your attempt to answer the last sentence of my complaint does not excuse the misquote. Your answer was also unconvincing. I'll repeat what I posted above: Barghouti does not say "apartheid was abolished in South Africa, so it can be abolished in Israel too." What he is saying that the South Africa campaign was successful in the 1980s so the Israel campaign can be successful in the 2020s. Feel free to quote Barghouti directly, but we may not claim in Wikipedia's voice that Israel is an apartheid. --GHcool (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Barghouti's argument is clearly that since boycotting South Africa worked, boycotting Israel also works. I don't see what difference it makes, but I have now changed his argument to not refer to apartheid in Israel. ImTheIP (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deliberately omitted?

Hello, the BDS has target Jewish Israelis and Jewish organizations with assumed link to their target. This is an essential part of their activity. Secondly the statement of "inspiration" with Apartheid is simply misleading, as it takes the perspective of the organization, not the neutral one, and reject other comparisons has "mere" criticism ( not in the editorial line). You should take into account that historical association of two different events is typically a propaganda technic to associate ideas and identification. For example as said earlier, BDS target individuals, while the boycott of Apartheid did not target Whites.

Also take into account that the introduction has to be neutral, not promotional. So the presentation should not be based on the studied subject allegations, in other words, the BDS official intentions should not be presented as facts, because this violate neutrality. Promotional content is not Wikipedia goal. Remember why you doing this. --Vanlister (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim that BDS is modeled after the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. You have it backwards, BDS does not target individuals: "BDS distinguishes between individuals and institutions. Unlike the cultural boycott against South Africa, BDS's cultural boycott does not target individuals." For your other objections, you need to present reliable sources. ImTheIP (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source also do not. So this is an easy claim, as you can find reliable sources for or against this claim. BDS actually target people identified as Jewish Israelis. About apartheid, white people were not, so check again your history, if you ever checked ?! Do I need to find reliable sources to prove your work is promotional? sources support facts, not criticism. I think we need god here, this is getting to ridiculous. --Vanlister (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)−

Please don't call "our work" promotional. I can assure that it is not. And I'm sorry, unless you provide reliable sources for your claims there is nothing I can do. ImTheIP (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy and Goals

Just a small edit request: The caption of the image says "Desmond Tutu have inspired BDS activists." but it should say "has". If someone with access could just resolve this, thanks. Finnigami (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Changed "have" to "has" in image caption. Thanks for catching that! warmly, ezlev. talk 23:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Movement and Mascot

Editor @Enthusiast01: edits and (re)reverts without sourcing and in contradiction to the given source that BDS is a campaign and not a movement. This is his opinion and nothing more than his opinion. As is his opinion, again without sourcing that information about BDS, namely its mascot, is not relevant to BDS. This sort of editing is less than helpful.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Agreed. I'm glad that ImTheIP seems to have resolved the issue for now. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Impertinent revert

This revert was uncalled for. The editor asked that I discuss on the talk page. Very well:

• The random black and white picture of a Palestinian refugee does not belong in this article. We do not need to start a "picture arms race" where one editor adds a random picture from Palestinian history and another editor adds a random picture from Jewish (for example, a picture from Nazi boycotts in the antisemitism section).
• The "Liberal Zionism" heading should be the same size as the other headings under the "Philosophy and Goals" section. This should be self explanatory.
• A paraphrase of an American University Business Law Review article in the "antisemitism" section is entirely warranted. It was reverted for no stated reason. I choose not to speculate as to whether it was done in good or bad faith.
• The definite article "The" belongs before the acronym ADL in the "antisemitism" section.

Unless a reasonable argument is made for not doing so, I intend on restoring these edits some time this week. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would note that Greendorfer does not contain the statement re US/EU adoption of working definition.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording the Greendorfer paraphrase so that is consistent with what is written on Page 357-8. --GHcool (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The revert was called for. I've argued for every change either in the edit messages or on this talk page but you haven't engaged in the discussion.

1. It is customary to illustrate topics with photos. If we describe X we want to have a photo showing X. In this case, we describe Palestinian refugees and thus we want a photo of Palestinian refugees. You have twice removed the photo with the edit message "removed random irrelevant photo" but you haven't explained why you think the photo is irrelevant.

2. I wrote in the edit message on the heading size that the "section deals with the RoR". Since liberal Zionism's main critique of BDS is that it insists on a right of return (RoR) for Palestinian refugees it should be a subsection of that section. Liberal Zionists generally don't have any problem with the other demands, such as dismantling the West Bank wall.

3. I motivated this change on this talk page in the section just above this one. Greendorfer's argument is described in the section "Singling out Israel": Marc Greendorfer believes that BDS "applies a unique standard [to Israel] not applied to any other country." There is no need to add his argument in multiple places and the EU and the US has not adopted the Working Definition for that matter.

4. See this discussion about "the ADL": Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020_September_24#The_in_front_of_abbreviations Since the Wikipedia article about the Anti-Defamation League doesn't write "the ADL" I don't think it should be used here either. ImTheIP (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Fair enough. I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit.

2. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it.

3. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it.

4. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Unless someone explains to me why I'm wrong, I will remain wrong. Your last edit violates the WP:POINT guideline and I have therefore reverted it. ImTheIP (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a disruption. I legitimately believe those images belong there. If you have a problem with them, please state why. Otherwise, I will restore the images. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do that. WP:AGF doesn't mean you have to accept editing that is obviously disruptive. There may be good images to illustrate the article with, but the ones you have chosen aren't. ImTheIP (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the ones I have chosen aren't good. I hope you don't accuse me of making a WP:POINT, but I thought that your inclusion of a refugee into the article wasn't a good image. I explained why, but this did not convince you and you reverted it because you thought it was not random. Your assertion that my images weren't good even though they are at least as relevant as your refugee image leads me to want to re-read that WP:AGF guideline to gird myself when I am tempted not to assume good faith. --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool:, if I may comment on the photo situation... and I make no bad faith assumptions, but I will suggest another course you might take here (or to take no action), and that is this: you do not think the image of Palestinian refugees in the Right of Return section is appropriate. If that is the case, are there possibly any other images you think would be appropriate in that section? If it is simply that one photo that you take issue with, then the simplest way to solve that would be to find another one that you and @ImtheIP: both find acceptable. Also - I think that your reasoning for adding the photos you added was because ImtheIP had said that every section should have a photo. Which is perfectly ok. BUT, the way it was stated, it did kind of come across as a tit-for-tat (WP:POINT) type act. An 'if you're going to put up images I object to there I will put up images you don't like here' thing. It is not unreasonable that ImtheIP would make that misunderstanding, so that shouldn't be held against him. Cheers, Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that my images weren't good even though they are at least as relevant as your refugee image This is the textbook definition of WP:POINT. Please stop edit warring and instead edit collaboratively. If you fail to do so I will file a complaint with the administrators. Now, if you want logos of Hamas, the Democratic party, and the Republican party added to the article, you have to explain why. It is not obvious to me what they add. But if you can argue for it, then there may be a consensus for adding them to this article in which case we do so. [[User:ImTheIPImTheIP]] (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: This edit is (afaict) a violation of the 1R rule and you ought to self-revert. The edit is also kind of obtuse and WP:POINTy. Knowing 1) that Israel hasn't allowed the Palestinian refugees to return and 2) that the international community believes that they have a right of return is necessary to understand what BDS's demands are about. Readers cannot be assumed to have the necessary background information. For example, I read recently that a large number of Americans believe that Palestine occupies Israel! That is the level many Wikipedia readers are on so things have to be explained to them even if it is obvious to you and me. ImTheIP (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my edit. It is accurate and reflects what the sources say. I hope Americans foolish enough to believe what you say they do will read the relevant Wikipedia articles on the topic. --GHcool (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edit is still a 1RR violation... And I don't understand what "the Arab world has denied self-determination to Palestinians elsewhere" means. Perhaps you can provide a specific page number and a quote from the source? ImTheIP (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In no way does the quoted text support what you added to the article. You have on multiple occasions misrepresented the sources you are using which is against the Wikipedia rules. ImTheIP (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I quoted only the most "smoking gunnish" portion. I invite you to read the entire article. When you do, you will see that I summarized it accurately. Even if you do not agree with Avnon's analysis, the history is what it is and can be found in multiple sources, including Wikipedia (for example here). --GHcool (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Your vague reference to a 15-page essay does not pass muster. ImTheIP (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: On the dispute resolution noticeboard you said that the photo of the Palestinian refugees was "ghastly". Are there photos in, say, Palestinian refugees or 1948 Palestinian exodus you would find less ghastly? I don't care so much about the specific photo we use as long as it is of a Palestinian. ImTheIP (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No. As I wrote here, "a photo of Palestinian refugees in 1948 is not topical enough to illustrate an article on the BDS movement." I am sorry that I did not respond with a compromise on the dispute noticeboard (I was out of town). --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see how the section could be illustrated without featuring a photo of a Palestinian refugee. ImTheIP (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A picture of Finkelstein is already there. Why do we need more than one photo in this section? After all, most of the "Criticism" sections have no illustrations. --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Liam Hoare

@GHcool: I moved Liam Hoare's argument to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Effectiveness. Does it really have to be in two places? ImTheIP (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You moved one part of his argument to the effectiveness section (and I'm glad you did). The other part, the part about whether or not BDS is an existential threat, belongs as a footnote. --GHcool (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The text I added reads "Liam Hoare argues that the countermeasures have already backfired, that BDS is unpalatable to the masses and that the Israeli government's heavy-handedness keeps it alive." This already implies that he doesn't think BDS is an existential threat. It doesn't need to be double-counted, especially not in a footnote. ImTheIP (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The footnote refers to the part of Hoare's article where he writes the following:

"Since BDS is a manifestly anti-Zionist political movement, Israel has no choice but to push back against it. Its aims, if their 2005 declaration is taken at face value, are quite clear: the end of Israel’s “colonization of all Arab lands” and the protection of 'the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.' Were such demands made concrete, Israel would cease to exist. Were BDS to become a broad-based movement underwritten by national governments, it could constitute an existential threat. But, of course, it isn’t — and likely never will be. BDS is a failed political movement, and the Israeli government stalks a tiger that walks on paper feet."

--GHcool (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know what his opinion piece says. For the record, he is a freelance writer and not associated with the Israel lobby. It is true that lots of people does not believe that BDS is a "strategic" or "existential" threat to Israel, but that angle is already exhaustively covered in the article. You have it in the Criticism section: "In 2007, The Economist called the boycott "flimsy" and ineffective" In the Impact section: "Pessin and Ben-Atar have argued that since Israel's gross domestic product nearly doubled between 2006 and 2015 and foreign investment in Israel tripled during the same period, BDS has not had a significant impact on Israel's economy." There's is no point in repeating the same argument in the form of a freelance writer's WP:UNDUE opinion in a misplaced footnote. ImTheIP (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

german neo-nazis

The Newsweek source says that neo-Nazi parties support a German boycott of Israel. Not that they support or are a part of the BDS movement. The Haaretz source is a. an opinion piece, and b. doesnt say anything at all about these parties. Adding a reference to something does not make it sourced, and misrepresenting sources is sanctionable conduct. nableezy - 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post explicitly says that those neo-nazi parties support BDS. Why did you skip that source in your comment? - Daveout(talk) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has been paid by the Israeli government to print articles associating BDS with antisemitism. That makes the Post unsuitable for this kind negative claims. Furthermore, what the Post says is that "[t]he III. Path supports the activities of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel." Supporting the activities is not the same as supporting the goals of the BDS movement. There parties are also microscopic - the largest, The III. Path, has 580 members. Whether they support BDS or not is UNDUE. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has been paid by the Israeli government. This claim is made by a 'webzine' (which is basically some sort of blog), so I don't think it is very trustworthy. The simple fact that neo-nazi groups support someone's ""activities"" is very concerning on its own, i would say. Neo-nazi groups are microscopic everywhere, this doesn't make them less concerning. - Daveout(talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not even denied by the Israeli government. Here is the anti-BDS supplement the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry paid the Post to publish. If everything fringe Nazis do always is notable, then Richard Spencer's endorsement of Joe Biden should be added to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign too. It isn't there and for the same reason shouldn't be here. ImTheIP (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. - Daveout(talk) 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to write about German Neonazis, it would be best to not draw any final conclusions before sources written in German and published in Germany have been consulted. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

German neo-nazis, again

There is currently a paragraph in the "Political" subsection of the "Support" section which reads According to Ha'Aretz, German Nazi parties and BDS find common ground in the effort to dilute "the widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Since the IHRA definition cites the demonization of Israel as an example of contemporary anti-Semitism, BDS supporters ... oppose this definition just as bitterly as neo-Nazis." This seems misplaced at best, which is why I removed it, but now it's been reinstated with an edit summary implying that it should be included because it's from Haaretz. To be clear, I just think we should remove it because the Support section is about support for BDS, and the paragraph is not about support for BDS. Not going to redo the removal myself because I don't want to edit war, but pinging GHcool who reinstated the content, and happy to hear from other editors too.

References

ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, This is textbook WP:UNDUE - an opinion piece in a partisan source. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, seems to me should be in the IHRA article if anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With that sort of programmatic smearing, it will end up with BDS, German Nazis and the 200 Jewish liberals in Jerusalem and diaspora who drew up the Jerusalem Declaration, all sharing common ground.

Tom Suarez, The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: a critical view Mondoweiss 31 March 2021

Tony Greenstein, Why we should critically welcome the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism Mondoweiss 1 April 2021 Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

::: We write according to what reliable sources like Haaretz say, And they discuss this in the context of BDS. Kenosha Forever (talk)

There's a pretty major difference between something being vaguely in the context of BDS and being explicit support for the BDS movement, which is what the section it was placed in talks about, no? Besides, the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 02:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::Let's unpack this a bit, shall we ? "the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist" - yes, but so what? If we were to start excluding opinion pieces by activists, I think we'd need to remove more than 50% of this article. If you want to attribute the opinion to the writer, go ahead, but don't remove it, wholesale. "something being vaguely in the context of BDS " - come now, BDS is the headline of this opinion piece, not something "vaguely in the context of BDS". Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I only brought up the sourcing because you mentioned it as if it justified inclusion, but my mention of it seems to have steered the discussion off topic, and I apologize for that. I'd like to focus on the specific issue of whether the disputed content should be included in the "Support" section of this article.

Again, I removed the content because it did not say anything about any person or group being in support of BDS, and the section it was in is about support for BDS. I'm not saying that the source shouldn't be used in the article - I can't even read the source, it's behind a paywall. My sole reason for removing the content, and for starting this discussion when it was added back, was that its placement did not make sense in the context of the article and I didn't find a place to move it that made sense either. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

When we are adding published opinions to articles, we need to take care who to attribute them to. "According to Haaretz" is a false claim, since this is not a Haaretz editorial but an op-ed by Petra Marquardt-Bigman published by Haaretz with an "Opinion" label. Haaretz publishes many opinions that disagree with each other, including pro-BDS opinions. The only acceptable attribution is "according to Petra Marquardt-Bigman". One then needs to ask (1) who? (2) does her opinion support the proposed text? To me it feels rather like "Nazis like chocolate, therefore chocolate is evil". Incidentally, Kenosha, headlines are generally written by sub-editors and not by authors, so they don't count at all. Zero^talk 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As an opinion piece it should be attributed to the writer Marquardt-Bigman and not Haaretz. The argument uses guilt by association (the Association fallacy) by linking BDS with "German Nazi parties". Many people and groups other than BDS and neo-Nazis regard criticism of Israel as not antisemitic. There is no reason why these two groups in particular should be linked unless the writer is trying to discredit the BDS and/or protect Israel from criticism. Anyway, that is Marquardt-Bigman's opinion and editors don't get to add their commentary when including it in an article. We need to decide whether the opinion satisfies the wp:weight requirement. I think the point about BDS challenging the IHRA definition of antisemitism would have received sufficient coverage to be suitable for inclusion. However, has anyone else linked BDS with neo-Nazi's. If not, then "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth)". The other thing to note is that, when there is disagreement about text that has been added to an article, the text should be removed from the article until a consensus is reached. Burrobert (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that attribution should be to Marquardt-Bigman, and that this is a question of due weight. Marquardt-Bigman was a historian, who wrote extensively about anti-Semitism. She was regularly published in Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Forward, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post and other media outlets. She was a scholar at The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law , and published academic work on anti-Semitism under its imprint. Her opinion is at least as notable as the countless activists currently present in the article, from Ali Abunimah to Peter Beinart, who have ZERO academic credentials in this are. This would be true even if she was the only one to connect BDS with neo-Nazis, but she is of course not alone: [5],[6] Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

"to connect BDS with neo-Nazis" <- problem right here. That they both don't like something doesn't otherwise connect them. That's the same thought in the BBC article "[could be associated]"..bah. Of course, Israel would like to connect BDS with Pol Pot if they could, you do know, I suppose, about the relationship between the MSA and the Jerusalem Post? You have a whole raft of Jewish scholars saying that BDS isn't antisemitic and you are pushing this drivel, time to move on, methinks.Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::On this project, we go by sources, and we don't discount sources as "drivel" just because we don't like them. Her opinion is notable, right or wrong, politically motivated or not. If we can quote that provocateur Abunimah, we can quote an academic who knows something about anti-Semitism. Kenosha Forever (talk)

It is patently a smear by a pro-Israeli activist, part of the spin wars.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::On this project, we go by sources. Many consider the rants of Abunimah or the screeds by Beinart to be similar smears, part of spin wars, yet they are in the article. As should this one. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself as well as teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. What opinion? That BDS and Nazis don't like IHRA? Put it in the IHRA article. Drivel will fit right in there and I won't even object. It doesn't connect BDS with Nazis other than that. Nor does not liking IHRA make you anti-Semitic.Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::::You may not like the reasoning she uses, but that's just tough noogies for you. On this project, we go by sources, and a notable opinion published in a reliable source has made the connection. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about her reasoning, I only care about yours so I will wait for your RFC asking whether said "opinion" should be included in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Its shame that don't care about fellow editors opinion. If there should be RFS it should be general one about what type of opinions we allow in this article Shrike (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have placed no restriction on anyone's ability to open any RFC they please. Of course, RFCbefore requires a discussion prior to opening such RFC and all we have discussed up to now is the false BDS/Nazi equivalence. Maybe you should begin a separate discussion rather than engaging in disruptive editing in respect of this one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

While you are writing it up, you can absorb this "opinion" (same subject).Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered sharply off topic, and there have been multiple reverted attempts to reinstate the disputed content, so I'm going to reiterate what the removal was actually about. I removed the paragraph quoted at the top of the discussion because it was in the "Support" section of this article, which lists people and groups that support or have supported BDS. The paragraph did not say anything about any person or group supporting BDS. (It said that neo-Nazis find common ground with BDS on a specific issue, and that doesn't mean one supports the other any more than the John Brown Gun Club supports the National Rifle Association or vice versa.)

It's that simple. The content didn't make any sense in context, so I removed it. Adding it back with no substantial changes will not fix the problem, which is that its location in the article makes no sense. Other issues which have been raised above can and should be discussed if the content is reworked and/or relocated so that its location makes sense and it is a more constructive addition to the article. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Right of return

Hello everybody. This is the first time I've ever contributed to a 'talk' page, so my apologies if I get protocol wrong ? My suggestion is that the sentence "...BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war to return to what is now Israel.." should be changed to read something like "... BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war - and all their descendants through the male line - to return to what is now Israel..." This is particularly relevant in the subsequent discussions on a 'right of return' creating an Arab majority in 'Israel'. There are only a few thousand 1948 refugees left alive, and readers might be puzzled as to how this could change Israel's demographics. What the PLO - and the BDS movement - is demanding is that their descendants be given the 'right', which would be several million people, which would most certainly change the demographics ? Regards, Roofgardener (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Roofgardener.

Activities

In the sentence "In 2014 the Gates Foundation sold its $170 million state ..." - I believe this should be "stake"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.154.26 (talk)

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed, and also moved your talk page comment to the bottom, which is where new comments go. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is another example of "state" for "stake" in the sentence "Veolia sold off its final investment in Israel, a 5% state in CityPass owned by its subsidiary Transdev." 24.212.193.227 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Internet rando who hates typos

Fixed. Squeakachu (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

erroneous irrelevant tag

citations 54 and 55 are erroneously marked as irrelevant, despite showing their relevance on their face. The location in which they are cited declares that the UN/the international community has supported Palestinian Right of Return, against Israeli legal action. The Right of Return is enumerated in citation 54, though the link given in the citation is to the abstract of a larger paper (this should probably be corrected), which within its full text reads:

• That this language meant the Palestinian refugees must be permitted to return if they so chose is made clear both in the intentions of the drafters, as well as in the discussions by the UN delegates when 194 was passed. Paragraph 11 also makes return, restitution, and compensation equally enforceable, according to the refugee’s own choice.6

This is, on its face, relevantly cited. Citation 55 is also relevant on its face, reading:

• The Right of Return achieved customary status in 1948 when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194(III) affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to obtain restitution and compensation. Like never before in the history of the UN, Resolution 194’s consistency with international laws and instruments was reaffirmed by the UN more than 135 times.

And further enumerates actions by the State Of Israel to circumvent the right of return:

• It is illegal as a matter of international law to deny refugees of a particular race, color, national or ethnic origin the right to return to their homes. Yet, subsequent Israeli laws barred Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in what is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (Law of Return), sanctioned mass denationalization laws targeting Palestinian refugees (Nationality Law), and confiscated Palestinian private property and land-holdings (Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law). While the Right of Return remains the primary remedy, Palestinian refugees are entitled to reparations of their homes and properties based on the UN Principles and Guidelines, ICCPR Article 2, and other instruments. Reparations entail restitution (including right to return), compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction of victims, and guarantee of non-repetition.

It is plain to see that these markups were either erroneous or malicious. 96.241.209.54 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They are irrelevant to BDS. The citations do not mention BDS at all. They belong in an article about refugees, not an article about BDS. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ben and Jerry's

An editor reverted the insertion of properly sourced material, a logical continuation of material already present in the article and claimed the reason as "nothing to do with BDS". In order to make it absolutely clear I have restored the edit along with additional references. If said editor has anything further to add then he can do so here.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Said editor has now breached 1RR as well as removing an RS with a false edit summary.Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we have a tag for a source commenting about itself, which is a simple case of WP:ABOUTSELF and doesn't need tagging.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

GHcool was right to remove that. That paragraph is written in a way that make it seems like B&J supports BDS and that Israel was boycotted bc of BDS, which is unproven. (violating SYNTH and NPOV). And why include so many responses and quotes from ppl that nobody cares about? Also, Nishidani's careless "undo" reintroduced an error into the text. - Daveout(talk) 07:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This news is widely and reliably sourced. If one finds some discrepancy in text and sources, one tweaks to make the two gel. Removal is just suppression of information from dislike. The task therefore is to lay out why the text as it stands misrepresents the sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Daveout got my intentions exactly right. B&J does not support BDS. Indeed, they specifically say that they will continue operating and doing business within Israel. The only party relating their political decision to BDS is Yair Lapid (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant to the article).

Daveout is also right that Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about. Anything that they say and do would violate WP:UNDUE unless/until they become a bigger part of the overall BDS movement.

I don't mind if the B&J kerfuffle is included somewhere in this article since Lapid was foolish enough to link the two. I object to framing the issue as though B&J is following a BDS "campaign" (as the heading indicates) or that BDS's decision is under BDS "activities" (another heading). A better place for some of this would be under the "Countering BDS" heading. If there is no objection, I will move it there within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The original edit was short, to the point and followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously and the location was never objected to before (ie a BDS campaign). So why are you objecting to it now? I suspect it is just because of the outcome and nothing more. I disagree that it is framed as if BnJ is following a BDS campaign, where does it say that? VJP was also in the article previously and not objected to. Lapid is irrelevant, this is obviously BDS related, that's why it was in the article to begin with. So yes, I object to any attempt to downplay or otherwise dilute this material unless you have consensus for that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about

Well, 'them arseholes whingeing about Pallies as if there were some problem with their wonderful lives under occupation'? In short, clearly, you couldn't give a fuck about them, which is okay but the business was founded and grown in Vermont, and that link made a group of Vermonters protest for many years, finally with some success. I can't see how any of your objections are anything more than dislike. The Israeli government has managed to persuade numerous state legislatures in the US to act against firms which join BDS boycotting. This company's decision effectively exposes it precisely to such retailiation. It is too precipitate to shift it out here, even were there some query about it, because it is BDS breaking news, and will be for a while. If there's work to be done, one tweaks. There's no policy objection above, so far.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani didn't respond to any of my point and his sarcasm is not helpful. His entire post can be ignored.

I addressed your post only you didn't care to notice. If Lapid, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, and at the United Nations state that the J&B decision will have political and ramifications and that pressure will be exerted on 35 states to apply to that firm the legislation Israeli advisors drafted as a template for laws explicitly framed to punish the BDS movement, then the connection is there and stated in several prime sources, (Ben Samuels, Wants U.S. to Enforce anti-BDS Laws Against Ben & Jerry’s. Will It Work? Haaretz 20 July 2021; Israel PM warns Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever of consequences over sales ban 20 July 2021; Lazar Berman Diplomat says anti-settlement decision by US ice cream company will encourages activists, as Lapid says he plans to address US governors of states that have anti-BDS legislation The Times of Israel 20 July 2021 )It is irrelevant what J&B think of BDS, or omit to mention it. Both the BDS movement and the Foreign Ministry of Israel state that the move is either supportive or connected to BDS, and this is precisely what the present article discusses. No amount of pettifogging can outflank those facts.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier's response was a bit more sophisticated and deserves an answer. I disagree that "followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously." I agree, however, that B&J does not frame its decision as part of a BDS campaign. That is why it is not appropriate to place this kerfuffle under the "Campaign" heading.

Selfstudier's argument has prompted me to rethink my approach to Vermonters for Justice in Palestine. I don't mind if they are mentioned in the article. What I object to is treating their website as a relevant/reliable source for anything. If VJP is mentioned in ABC, etc. then by all means, put them in the article.

I don't want to downplay of dilute. I only have three two suggestions, both of which would improve the article in ways that ought to be acceptable by all sides:

1. Remove the one sentence that begins, "VTJP describes itself ..."
2. Move the entire B&J kerfuffle (from "On 19 July" to "anti-Jewish discourse") to the "Countering BDS" section. --GHcool (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's two suggestions, not three and neither of them is any good:-

The objection to VJP has no foundation, it is only being used as a source about itself, aboutself specifically permits a source to comment on itself and the purpose here is simply to show that it says that it supports BDS, nothing else. It was described in the article previously as one of "a number of local campaigns have been created by BDS-affiliated groups and endorsed by the movement". So they like each other, that's all that says and it is entirely unobjectionable in the given context (ie their involvement in the campaign).

This has nothing to do with countering BDS. How you arrive at that is beyond me.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

An editor has inserted directly into the lead "It has been noted that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is based on the opinion of a Sherwin Pomeranz writing in the Jerusalem Post who is described thus "The writer has lived in Israel for 37 years, is CEO of Atid EDI Ltd., a Jerusalem-based business development consultancy, and former national president of the Association of Americans & Canadians in Israel." This individual who I have never heard of seems uniquely unqualified to say "The catalyst for this decision was the pressure exerted by a group called Vermonters for Justice in Palestine (vtjp.org) that is totally committed to supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a program that seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." That apart, that an editor would then, based on this, edit WP as if it were a fact is completely undue (as well as rather obvious POV editing). Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Now said editor has altered the statement to "BDS proponents have stated that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland" again without attribution and this time citing JVL unreliable source per this RFC which I have removed and another source of doubtful value (the Jewish Journal(Los Angeles)) which is a recycled piece of junk news that has been doing the rounds for years and the edit does not even properly reflect it anyway. Tagged.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In case I am still not making myself clear, I am content to take this to RSN for a view on this.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As the founder of the BDS Omar Barghouti has stated that his desire is the elimination of the State of Israel. That is sufficent evidence.2603:8081:6B04:5300:B061:6CEB:BCEC:3FE0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ADL's views on BDS anti-semitism

The ADL is clear and nuanced in it's description of the ways that the BDS movement is anti-semitic:

"IS BDS ANTI-SEMITIC? - Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti- Semitic." (link)

For unexplained reasons, editors want to wipe that any nuance about the ADL's views: (AlsoWukai,SelfStudier).

Instead of turning this into an edit war, can we get a clear explanation why a sentence explaining their views needs to be removed? And if there is no reason to remove my text, it needs to be restored.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Your acquaintance at the StandWithUS article is fond of pointing out the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. At this point, you have been reverted by two different editors so you don't have consensus for your desired change. Perhaps some other editors will appear and support your position.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: There is absolutely nothing disputed about ADL, a reliable sources, spelling out the ways they feel BDS is anti-semitic. The original reverter did so until a false pretense, it was not just a "ce". Your explanation is "it was fine as-is" is also not sufficient. Why did this text need to be removed?

And if you're going to continue to engage in your absolutely intransigent behavior, blocking changes, without any solid basis behind your actions then this may need to be escalated to incident reports. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In case you have forgotten, I was the second editor to revert, not the first. And "not an improvement" (= "it was fine the way it was before") is a very common reason for a revert. Your edit essentially added nothing of any consequence. Also WP:CIVIL if you please.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, your edit in question here has been reverted by two editors and there is no consensus to include it – so independent of anything else that might be going on, Selfstudier is entirely correct that in this case the WP:ONUS is on you. (And unless I'm mistaken, belief that the status quo of an article is fine or that a change is nonconstructive is actually a valid reason to oppose a change.) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The first editor reverted my change under a completely false premise: "ce".

As for Selfstudier's revert, how and why is spelling out ADL's views in more detail not an improvement? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what you need to discuss. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: ADL does not simply describe BDS as anti-semitic. It spells out the ways in which it is anti-Semitic (goals and strategies). This information is from a reliable source, it's nowhere else in the article, and thus it should be clarified.

Now can Selfstudier or anyone else explain why they feel that this additional information must be removed? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively minor point (nuanced, might be a better term), but I agree with Bob drobbs on the two points he makes: (1) His original change was reverted with a misleading edit summary that called it "ce", which it was not and (2) there is a difference between saying "Organization/Person X is antisemitic" and ""Organization/Person X have goals which are antisemitic". If indeed the ADL said the latter and not the former, why would this article present the moe accurate/nuanced position? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I edit and here you are again, never having been on the page in recent times. Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it?Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You overestimate your importance- see the simple explanation Inf-in MD (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I mentioned WP:HOUND to you at the StandWithUs article and I will now mention it once again that it is a bad idea. Benefit of the doubt for now.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you did, and I appreciate that, and can tell you I am not doing that. You happen to edits a lot of article sin the same topics areas I am interested in, so naturally our path cross. But you never did answer the question I asked you - as to how you found yourself at Talk:Death of Mustafa Tamimi a couple of hours after my edit? A coincidence, was it? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably because someone else on my watchlist edited the page. If this is a roundabout way of saying that that could be the same thing for you, sure, but I am not talking about just one or two pages, OK? Anyway we can discuss this on our talk pages rather than here, right?Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: ADL does not simply describe BDS as anti-semitic. It spells out the ways in which it is anti-Semitic (goals and strategies). This information is from a reliable source, it's nowhere else in the article, and thus it should be clarified. That's your WP:ONUS. Unless you can come up with a reason from the WP:MOS why my content should be removed, please do not do so again. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All you have done is to move a quote from a ref into the article. I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to is you deciding that when 3 editors tell you that are in the wrong, you unilaterally decide that you are in the right.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:Moving relevant content from reliable sources into encyclopedia pages is exactly the purpose of wikipedia. If you don't like that, find another home.

And if you don't give a hoot about edits, then don't revert them. You're making a lot of unnecessary work for people!

And FYI, you are the _only_ editor who claimed that this information didn't belong on the page. The first editor intentionally or accidentally removed relevant information when cleaning up text. Ezlev, said that WP:ONUS was a relevant point but then thanked me for my response. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't characterize my thanks for your response as support for your edits. My intent was to thank you for engaging in discussion. I'm deliberately not engaging in the substance of this content dispute. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Countering anti-Semitism in the lead

@Nishidani: Please revert your last change or otherwise improve it so I don't have to. Basically the source does not say what you claim it says.

The source doesn't mention "smear" and that's a loaded word you should only use if the source does. And it only argues against a very limited set of the many accusations of anti-Semitism made against BDS. Basically HRW just says that singling out Israel does not make BDS inherently anti-Semitic.

By comparison, one of the things that the ADL says "...the predominant drive of the BDS campaign and its leadership is not criticism of policies, but the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. "

Needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure of the best way.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Third Para NPOV issues.

According to critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, BDS is antisemitic,[13] has elements of anti-Semitism,[14] seeks to delegitimize Israel,[15] and/or resembles historical discrimination against Jews.[16] The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel.[17] Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, which has put in place measures that confront BDS activities in over 30 states

• (a) Critics of BDS get 25 words
• (b) Summary of anti-BDS measures in US taken by 30 states (28)

I.e. we have 53 words on what BDS is criticized for, and measures taken in the US to counter it. Part of this is neutral because the effect of these laws is attributed to the lobby. Part is not, because passing laws in 30 states looks likes impressive testimony that BDS is widely viewed as an organization that proposes things states regard as illegal)

• (c) A comment not mentioning BDS gets 12.

The third paragraph therefore is unbalanced. It should summarize the accusations made by critics, and the defense of BDS advanced against those accusations in parity of weight. Instead 53 words underline the criticisms, and a mere 12, vague, and not apparently linked to BDS (it is a generalization about anti-Semitism, not a comment about BDS), are tweaked in as a nod to NPOV.

I have corrected this imbalance by providing text allocating a 56/42 rough parity in terms of accusation and defence, per NPOV.

By the way the sentence in (b) is completely screwed up by inaccuracy and messy attribution. The Israel lobby has not 'put into place measures' to 'confront' BDS. Israel (the laws draw on a draft by an Israeli legal scholar) and a number of pro-Zionist groups have successfully lobbied 30 states to enact laws that make the implementation of BDS proposals unlawful). The measures taken are the responsibility of the states. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'll come back to discuss the other issues. But the biggest NPOV issue in the 3rd paragraph right now is what seems to be your total distortion of what HRW says. Please address that issue before moving on to other things. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I have no faith in your ability to construe a source, since twice you invented stuff and falsified it, and since you state here I distort what 'HRW' says, when I am as always quoting what Erik Goldstein says, you'd better do some homework and show where I distort what Goldstein says. I don't quote the HRW, but him, and you can't see it.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Source falsification

Source Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return. Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic. Biden, too, should defend free speech rights, which include the right to call for peaceful boycotts, even if he remains anti-BDS. He should also oppose laws that penalize companies seeking to disentangle themselves from rights abuses inherent in Israeli settlements. And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways. To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism. Eric Goldstein, 'Biden Should Defend the Right to Call for a Boycott,' Human Rights Watch, 1 February 2021

(A)My paraphrase The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

This was rewritten in

(B) Bob drobb’s rephrasing as ' According to Human Rights Watch some of the accusations of anti-Semitism don't have merit. Bob drobbs Clarified that HRW only disputes some of the allegations of anti-Semitism. Removed loaded language.

• HRW did not make that statement. One of its regional directors did. False attribution.
• In writing on the BDS page that Goldstein/HRW stated 'some of the accusations of anti-Semitism don't have merit, the editor falsified the text which has no such language. Worse, in plain English, the sentence thus reformulated means that Goldstein/HRW's view is that 'some of the accusations of anti-Semitism' (context = regarding the article's topic, the BDS movement) are without merit, which implies that HRW thinks some of the accusations of the same have merit. That's how English works. So a sources which dismisses anti-Semitism accusations about the BDS as maligning of that movement is spun to make out that some of those accusations (not all) have no merit. Source falsification like that actually is sanctionable. You twisted the text deliberately to make it say what it nowhere states.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

1) The reference is to an article on HRW's website, written by one of it's directors. I'm puzzled why you claim it's not HRW's position.

2) See the talk section immediately above this one. I have no idea why you didn't engage there. I found your description to be equally problematic. Part of the problem was the loaded word "smear" was nowhere in the source. I tried to come up with an improvement, and I'm not claiming my description of the source's content was perfect.

I'm happy to work with you to come to an agreement for what meets WP:DUE and accurately captures what the source says. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In English 'it's,' and 'its' are two different things. I gave correct attribution and you didn't. I don't attribute to JPost the views of its main staff. I name who wrote what.

Answer the question, and don't move the goalposts. Your rephrasing has no basis in the source. In short, you rewrote the source and in doing so, distorted it to insinuate something not there. Don't waffle through my point. Address that linguistically. Justify your construal by referring where in the text by Goldstein is it stated that some of the accusations re BDS are without merit. Nota bene. Once an editor has been alerted that they have falsified a source, and cannot account for the distortion they introduced, persistence in defending the falsification is one of the major reasons for people being topic banned. At least that was so in the past.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The JPost is news agency. HRW is a human-rights organization. The two are not comparable.

I made a mistake in choosing the word "some". It was not intentional. And it has been fixed. Now can you explain how your use of the loaded word "smear" that wasn't in the source wasn't also a falsification?

Again, if you don't like updated text, I'm happy to work with you in order to come up with text that correctly represents the source and meets WP:DUE.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like smear, use malign. I appreciate your efforts to try to fix the POV hash you made of the source, Bob, but singling out Israel, by itself, does not constitue anti-Semitism is still not what the source states. Writing paraphrase means getting as close to the text used as a source without copying it. It doesn't mean interpreting it in any of a dozen possible ways to create a synthesis of what an editor thinks the author must mean. What you now write does this, and obscures totally what the source actually states. You make it sound like a generalization. The source is specific: BDS is maligned/smeared by those who accuse it of being anti-Semitic. It's as simple as that, and eliding all reference to that straightforward concrete mention of BDS as the object of malign smearing is pointy. The solution is simple. Restore the edit that preexisted these two confusing changes. I.e.

The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear/maligning by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

Of course you are not obliged to do that. But tampering twice with a fair text - on both occasions obscuring the quite specific point it made re BDS suggests that your not comfortable with the source being paraphrased for what it clearly states. If you don't, I'll restore the earlier version sometime in the near future. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I detect a certain lack of self-assurance about the niceties of English prose (this is apparent since the first version's use of 'some' actually destroyed the intended and unambiguous meaning of the source), 'smear' is a synonym of 'malign' and I simply chose the later as a matter of paraphrasing to avoid copying the language of the original. Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

HRW speaks of problems with only the "spurious" accusations of anti-Semitism. It makes no mention of all of the other accusations of anti-Semitism which are not spurious. Then it goes on to speak about one, and only one, accusation of anti-Semitism which they say isn't anti-Semitic. That's what I captured in my text:

...criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways... To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans

Your text was not "fair". The amount of text was absolutely WP:UNDUE based on it's proportion to the text speaking about BDS's anti-Semitism. And look elsewhere and you'll see word "smear" has differing connotations.

Beyond that, the problem with this source in the lead, is that it falsely gives the impression that it's countering all of the various ways that BDS is anti-semitic. In actuality, it's only countering one very specific thing. I wonder if it belongs in the lead at all? Looking at your comment when you made the edit, it seems your intent was to imply large scale support against all accusations of anti-Semitism, and that's not covered by this source at all:

...the antisemitism charge is rejected by a notable number of scholars, human rights groups and a:ctivists

If you put your text back without even trying to come to some sort of agreement here, I might just revert it. Yet again, I ask you very politely to please work with me to come to some sort of agreement that is clear and satisfies WP:DUE.

As a starting point, can you explain how and why this particular source belongs in the lead at all, as it doesn't seem to meet the goals you were trying to achieve when you added it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Bringing you in here too so we can discuss the lead, it's accuracy, and WP:DUE.

Your source doesn't seem to say what you've written. The word "inherent" is a crucial qualifier that's missing. "Efforts to boycott Israel" are not excluded from being antisemitic. There remain a bunch of different ways boycotts against Israel can be antisemitic even according to the Jerusalem definition:

Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic...

And remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on trying to achieve Consensus. Are you willing to work with me here to do so?: -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

see here, the paragraph discussing the JDA, note that it does not say "inherently". My edit is a summary of that together with an additional reference. I will leave the other matter for you and Nishidani to sort out between you while noting that HRW director did use the word "malign" in a statement.Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Wikipedia is not a source, and just because it hadn't been fixed in the body yet, doesn't mean the incorrect text should stay in the lead. You made this change, you should own it, and fix it.

Plus, your additional text changes the balance of the lead for WP:DUE. I think one of the other of these sources would be appropriate balance, not both, but either way:

1) The text must accurately reflect what the source says.

2) It should not give any impression that these are blanket rebuttals of BDS antisemitism.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A WP article body IS a source for a summary in the lead. That's how you get a lead, it's a summary of what is in the body with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The information you added to the lead seems to be false. Are you denying any part of that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which part of my edit is false?Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Go back a couple of comments because you already read it. The word inherently is a crucial qualifier to accurately represent what the source says. This is not a blanket exclusion claiming that boycotts of Israel aren't antisemitic or cannot be antisemitic. This text is false:

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"A group of over 200 scholars has released a definition of anti-Semitism that explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel" https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-200-scholars-say-backing-israel-boycotts-is-not-anti-semitic/ if it's an additional ref that you seek.Selfstudier (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before but I can see that the ref in the article body is mislinked to Haaretz when in fact it appears that it should be the link I just gave. I didn't look at it before because I was going by the article body and was giving an additional ref in any case. I'll fix it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a far better source for your claim. I appreciate you sharing it and I am no longer claiming this text isn't supported by RS. However... if you scroll down two paragraphs, your new source seems to agree with the existing source:

The Jerusalem Declaration goes further ... saying that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic

Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic...

I would say that the more specific statement, and the claim where the two sources seem to agree, takes precedence over what might just be a sensationalist lead paragraph in one source. Do you disagree? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The proper way to proceed if you wish to contest this is either to first contest what's in the body since my edit to the lead is based on that or to argue that my edit to the lead is not due weight. Both of these are likely to be "consensus" matters. This page has many eyes on it so I don't expect much of a problem in achieving such a consensus. Another way might be to collect up many sources and see if there is a prevalent version I also dk if there might be any scholarly sources available since it's fairly recent but I will take a look around all the same.Selfstudier (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/new-definition-anti-semitism-challenges-pro-israel-narratives There appears from this to have been two separate statements "200 international scholars has come up with a definition of anti-Semitism that excludes efforts to boycott Israel," and then "a separate [earlier] statement issued by a liberal group of Jewish scholars, which said that boycott measures applied to Israel were not necessarily anti-Semitic.". That could be where the sources are confusing things. We can delve into all the details of who said what and when but that should be done at the JDA article and I am not sure that inherently or necessarily make that much of a difference when all is said and done, afaics most sources are pointing up the contrast with the IHRA document as the main event.Selfstudier (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: There's a very substantive difference between saying something isn't of it's nature racist versus saying it cannot be racist. Going to the original source seems appropriate to check accuracy when a RS disagrees with itself:

"Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace ... In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic". (jerusalemdeclaration.org)

So, Forward, TOI, the actual declaration, plus Nishidani's original HRW reference all use some form of "inherently". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's a distinction without a difference (or a mountain out of a molehill). So why not wait and see what others have to say about it? Of course, you could revert my edit, I can't prevent you doing that. I think I have spent enough time on it just for the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Before I take off, since I have never actually read it I just went and had a look so as you say above, it just says "Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." so what we are discussing is what that means, right? Interpretations might differ although speaking for myself it seems pretty clear so that's why we have to filter it through secondaries.Selfstudier (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob, lay off, desist. You screwed up your rewrite twice, and admit that. Now you want more humongous argufying to negotiate something more to your likes again, when the edit you challenged was plain and faithful to the source, and not question-begging. What you are now saying ignores the specific fact that Goldstein in one para states what he stated, anti-Semitism+BDS-smear. That is what is relevant to this article.

You scour the text and pick up (a)Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic (b) 'And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways.'

(a)The text stated specifically that BDS was being smeared as anti-Semitic and that is what we use it for. So it's pointless culling Biden's words to craft a phrase when the author notes Biden did not call BDS anti-Semitic.

(b) is a generalization at the end of the article about Trump practices of criticizing anyone or group, not only BDS, as anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is inept semantically. You can't 'tar criticism . .in spurious ways' for the simple reason that this implies you can 'tar' someone in non-spurious ways.

You are making a huge fuss about a very simple statement in the source which you have twice inaccurately manipulated. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just laying the different versions out for clarity:

"In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." (JDA-primary)

"It explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel." (WP article body -> lead)

"A group of over 200 scholars has released a definition of anti-Semitism that explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel" (ToI lead in)

"The Jerusalem Declaration goes further ... saying that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic" (ToI later in the article-same as primary)

"Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic..." (ToI again - you cited this but it is referring to two things at once)

"Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic" (Forward-again, two things, not one.)

"Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic."(Goldstein - a kind of reverse usage)

To me, "in and of themselves" (per the primary source) is the same thing as "per se", beloved of lawyers and just means "not considering any other factors" (abundance of caution). Of course it is possible that there might be some circumstances which might be construed as etc etc (same as saying there is always a probability no matter how small for some event). So I think just simply saying boycotts are excluded or the equivalent is in fact correct. The lawyerly way of looking at it would ask "What is the intent?" and I think it is clear that the declaration intends to exclude boycott in the usual sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.inss.org.il/publication/anti-zionism-antisemitism-and-the-fallacy-of-bright-lines/ is the only scholarly thing I found so far (recognized expert in the field, covering all the bases, list of sources) but only mentions the JDA (and Nexus) in passing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Four different sources, plus some additional ones above, and this includes the original HRW link all use similar language, which clearly indicates that it's possible for BDS to be anti-semitic or have anti-semitic aspects to it. That's a crucial difference.

HRW

Forward: is not inherently antisemitic

HRW: tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic

TOI: is not in and of itself anti-Semitic

Declaration: not, in and of themselves, antisemitic

Nishidani you made no attempt to come up with language that would be mutually agreeable. As stated above, there are differing connotations between "smear" and "malign". And the large amount of text is WP:UNDUE for the lead. And most importantly HRW does NOT claim that ALL accusations of antisemitism malign BDS. As written it's miseleading, if not completely false, so it needs to be fixed. If you feel that HRW said that all accusations of antisemitism smear BDS, please share the text of where they say that! What I see is "governmental actions malign". Which governmental actions are these?!?

Selfstudier, you can guess at intent. But when a stack of RS say the same something, and it matches the language of the actual document, that's the version we should use for clarity and accuracy.

Adding two different sentences in the lead about generally the same idea, which is that boycotts are of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic is also WP:UNDUE. These two things probably should be be collapsed into a single sentence for balance, the way the antisemitism allegations are being handled. For the moment, I'll be deleting Nishidani's text completely, and making Selfstudier's text in the lead, plus the body, conform to what's said in the stack of above sources. I would like to try to be constructive and come to an agreement here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thank you for letting me know about my incidental violation of 1RR with a multiedit. I rolled it back and restored your text. But do you have any strong objections to the new text which I feel accurately represents both the document itself an a bunch of sources. As of right now, I do plan to put it back later.

@Nishidani: Your text has been removed for now. If you feel HRW says that all accusations of anti-semitism smear BDS, please provide the full quote where HRW says it. The source seems to says "governmental actions". Which governmental actions?? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You've shown several problems in reading accurately a simple text, as documented above. You don't reply in a focused manner on what I or other respondents argue. And, it is not that 'your text has been removed for now'. You mean 'I (Bob drobbs) have removed your text for now'. And I Nishidani feel perfectly entitled to restore it. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me, this article is on my watchlist. You appear to be ignoring my comments above re the different sources as well as equating BDS = boycotts (only a part of BDS and the JDA is only referring to that part). You are also "choosing" the Forward source rather than the ToI source used in the article body (and which does not need to be re-cited in the lead for it to be effective. (changing the body as well was a kind of third revert, idk how long it has been there, would have to check) To reiterate you need to go a step at a time or argue one thing at a time. So as I said above, to contest what I put in the lead (which is based on what is in the body, identical in fact, and directly supported by the ToI source), you first need to show that what is in the body is wrong and I don't think you have managed to do that (or at least I disagree with your reasoning based on my arguments above). Alternatively (not as well as) you can argue that my addition to the lead is undue but it is rather difficult to make that argument now having deleted Nishidani's material. Messy, I know, but needs must.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please keep discussions about the HRW content here, instead of the other section. We're "edit warring" in large part because I believe you have completely and totally misrepresented what that source says. Where _exactly_ does it say that all accusations of anti-semitism smear BDS? What I see is "government actions malign". Can you please share the text from HRW where it says what you have written in the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind you keeping it here except in so far as there is no contradiction with the discussion below, the two things being at a minimum, connected (BDS/Boycott).Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem Declaration - Accuracy

Moving this conversation here. Selfstudier, you said I have to show the current content is "wrong". I don't believe that's the case. I think I just need to show that the new content is an improvement. The current text:

• "...Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel"

First of all, there is a tangible and crucial difference between any blanket claims that BDS is not antisemitic and claims that they are not by their nature antisemitic, but there is the possibility of them being antisemitic or acting in antisemitic ways.

At least 4 sources make it clear that the document is not a blanket exemption. The document itself does too:

1. Forward: "is not inherently antisemitic”
2. HRW: "tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic”
3. TOI: "is not in and of itself anti-Semitic”
4. JDA: "they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic"
5. Declaration: "not, in and of themselves, antisemitic”

I think the lead should be edited to match the Forward and HRW use of "inherently" for length and accuracy. The body needs to be changed for accuracy too, but I'm ambivalent which form it takes.

These changes would bring the content much more in line with a majority of sources and the document. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism article, and it's clear to me that this is a key point: the document doesn't say that BDS and related efforts are not antisemitic but rather that they are not antisemitic in and of themselves. However, I believe it's also true that the JDA explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel from its definition of antisemitism: that is, it explicitly states that efforts to boycott Israel are not in and of themselves antisemitic. What I'm saying is that these two phrasings have the same intended meaning.

Of the two, though, only the current wording can be misinterpreted as saying that the JDA defines boycotts of Israel as never antisemitic. So I support Bob drobbs' proposal of using not inherently antisemitic or something similar – it's not perfect but it follows the sources and is the clearest phrasing I can think of. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, is it your edit at the JDA artice that says "The declaration does not take explicit stances for or against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement or the one-state solution, but rules they are not antisemitic "on the face of it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

) I just came back to sign it and you beat me to it, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Is "on the face of it" that different in meaning from "inherently" or "in and of itself"? That Forward article you linked quotes Alon Confino as saying “The JDA does not, of course, insinuate that the Jews do not deserve a state, but merely that denying this right is not in and of itself antisemitic”. Emphasis added. The concept of something being not inherently antisemitic is clearly an important one with regard to the JDA. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it because it was the same Forward ref as the additional reference I added to my edit of the BDS lead and I couldn't recall seeing that quote in it. If it isn't actually a quote (I might have missed it) it should be fixed, of course. Anyway, I prefer the JDA article sentence, fixed if necessary, I do think we should try to maintain a certain consistency across the articles using the JDA article as root -> BDS article body -> BDS article lead, rather than reinventing the wheel, if the sources are actually the same.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The other point I am not quite happy with is that I was only addressing the boycott aspect whereas Nishidani (HRW) was looking at the entirety of BDS and that material has been deleted so I think we can also add BDS material from the JDA article as well, what do you think?Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

One editor, just one editor, has waged a war against the HWR source. Twice he introduced phrasings that contradicted the source, falsifying it. It was an abuse, and reportable. For Bob, it doesn't state what he wants it to state: He wants their unequivocal source declaration that BDS is not anti-Semitic to leave in the possibility or innuendo as he states above that 'there is the possibility of them being antisemitic or acting in antisemitic ways.' Nothing of this is in HWR. So, what was his third move. Erase HRW and use Arno Rosenfeld The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism states that boycotts of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic The Forward 25 March 2021. With this he writes:

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism states that boycotts of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic.

The JDA declaration, according to Rosenfield,

the document purposely did not take a position on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement

So why in the lead does Bob remove a source that explicitly states its view of the nexus between anti-Semitism and BDS, to replace it with a reference to a definition that deliberately does not mention BDS.

Bob, that's your third try. Twice distorting a source because it said what you don't won't noted, and when this failed, erasing the source to cite a declaration which never mentions BDS (though Rosenfield makes the connection) The replacement sentence is out of place because it never mentions BDS. It is a generalization from which the reader is expected to infer that the prior sentence's relating BDS to anti-Semitism via boycotts has been challenged. You are creating problems for the reader in doing so. In sum, you are POV pushing right down the line to main a margin for the innuendo there may be some truth the in negative criticism. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

An alternative for the lead might be to take all of the stuff out and simply replace it with something like "there is no consensus on whether BDS is anti-Semitic" or "Whether BDS is antisemitic is disputed" together with a couple of the most representative sources in that regard. Then we can sort out the body as needed.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be parity between a number of different antisemitism allegations directed at BDS, and credible people on the other side disputing only one of those accusations. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that? Scholarly and not partisan for preference.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

TheFourDeuces, at the recent NPOV discussion you initiated, said much the same thing as I just proposed and gave some reasons and sourcing for that opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Feldman, David.(Pears)(Ed) Boycotts Past and Present: From the American Revolution to the Campaign to Boycott Israel. Springer, 2018 p281, Assessing BDS, Philip Marfleet (Blurb- "In this collection, contributors explore the history of past boycott movements and examine the different narratives put forward by proponents and opponents of the current BDS movement directed against Israel: one which places the movement within a history of struggles for "human rights"; the other which regards BDS as the latest manifestation of an antisemitic tradition.")Selfstudier (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I don't have any scholarly sources offhand. But I do have examples handy:

German Parliament: "The argumentation patterns and methods used by the BDS movement are anti-Semitic."[7]

Anti-Defamation League: "...many of BDS's goals and strategies as anti-Semitic"

The people at HRW and the Jerusalem Declaration say it's not inherently antisemitic to decide to boycott Israel. They don't dispute the statements made by the ADL or German Parliament. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The JDA is sand in the eyes. The point is, why does Bob insist on misinterpreting or erasing the HRW source. That organization is one of the most important and neutral right watch bodies in the world, beyond suspicion for playing politics. Political stances and opinions are likewise predictable, boring: it is a formal part of Israel's diplomatic strategy and huge investments in social media, newspapers, lobbies, and in every political foreign policy argument in European and northern American continental states etc to promote its hasbara trump card equating criticism of Israel's occupation with a putative anti-Semitic bias against Israel as a Jewish nation. The sums mustered for this are enormous. So I yawn when I see people citing things like the German parliamentary declaration. These are definitions that arise from tactical political moves. Before someone says that sounds like David Miller, who was sacked recently for a statement similar to this, read Anshel Pfeffer Israel Is More Focused on 'Hasbara' Than It Is on Policy Haaretz 2 May 2012; Anshel Pfeffer The Politics and Money Behind Israel's Zionist Bureaucracy Haaretz 9 May 2014.(There is phrasing there from hasbarists almost identical to the key remark Miller made which newspapers regard as anti-Semitic:'.” Each of these groups (30 including ADL) has heavy-weight donors, offices in Israel and abroad, a strong presence on the Internet and social media and a steely determination to conquer the battlefield of ideas — for Israel and the Jewish people.') So it is a fundamental Israeli talking point to throw that accusation at BDS. Fine, we state that this is a view of critics of BDS. By par condicio we must state that the equation is dismissed or denied by a major human rights organization, scholars etc. All I can see here is incompetent misreading of sources to undercut what HRW's director said, which, when not successful, led to the elision of HRW and its substitution with ref to a generalization that never mentions BDS. If you mislead and misparaphrase a simple source twice, then erase, put in another irrelevant source and shift the goalposts, the conclusion is obvious. You're not showing equilibrium and are pushing for a POV, one that wants BDS to wear the tinge of being possibily anti-Semitic.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Come on Bob, that's why I said scholarly non partisan sources, I can match you one for one if I just want to cherry pick predictable or well known positions. The noise level was very high during the latter part of Trump/Pompeo but that's all over, we're in the Ben & Jerry era now.Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate & https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/magazine/battle-over-bds-israel-palestinians-antisemitism.html Nathan Thrall.

I see now where "on the face of it" comes from, that is lifted straight from the declaration text (at the top of Guidelines C, it says "C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic" and then at 14, "Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I removed the content from HRW because I believe you are the one who has 100% misrepresented it and I didn't see an easy way to fix it. Nowhere in the article does it say "... accusations of antisemitism smear". The actual text in the article says "...governmental efforts to malign".[8] So, I'll ask you again, which governmental actions are these? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say "... accusations of antisemitism smear" We don't ordinarily mirror word for word what an article says, we compose prose. The article currently has "Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism laid against BDS a smear." and the HRW article by Goldstein says "unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign [BDS].. ", you are saying that these two statements don't mean the same thing, is that right? Not sure I understand your point about "governmental actions", what do you mean exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Here's what the text says, and I think we're in agreement about this:

"unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign [BDS]... "

Nishidani has somehow connected the dots that these "governmental actions" were "charge of antisemitism". I don't believe that's what the article says or even intended to say. My question to him is how he came to that conclusion. Or to put it differently, what exactly are the governmental actions which HRW refers to. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no connecting of dots. The source says

But Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return

Pull your socks up. I'm not concerned with what you believe. I won't be sucked into replying endlessly to questions that do not focus on the precise context, or that arise from your evident inability to grasp what a paraphrase does. I didn't cite the article. I cited what a director stated. That you insist I must cite HRW's view is beside the point. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This is not paraphrasing. This is WP:OR.

Nowhere in that quote does it say that these "governmental efforts to malign" are "accusations of antisemitism". You have just made that up. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you keep harping, about things conceptually resolved, I'll keep reposting what you should have read and understood

Source Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return. Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic. Biden, too, should defend free speech rights, which include the right to call for peaceful boycotts, even if he remains anti-BDS. He should also oppose laws that penalize companies seeking to disentangle themselves from rights abuses inherent in Israeli settlements. And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways. To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism. Eric Goldstein, 'Biden Should Defend the Right to Call for a Boycott,' Human Rights Watch, 1 February 2021

(A)My paraphrase The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

There is no WP:OR, no connecting stray dots. That is sparse paraphrase of the source, with correct attribution to the person quoted. Succinct because leads require that. I've been doing this kind of thing for 85,000 edits, Bob, without significant challenges to my ability to précis. If you insist on challenging it as a fair paraphrase, take it to the appropriate page. It's pointless engaging in WP:Bludgeon tactics here. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm sorry, but it's still WP:OR. You're still making guesses.

It's unclear what exactly they meant by governmental actions. The quote seems to give the impression of giving Biden credit for not labeling BDS as "inherently anti-Semitic". At the bottom of the article Goldstein speaks of a problem with "spurious" accusations.

Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways
Joe Biden ... has not called it inherently anti-Semitic.

The "maligning" could mean, at minimum, one of at least three things:

• Accusations BDS is inherently anti-Semitic
• Spurious accusations of anti-Semitism
• All accusations of anti-Semitism

Why would Goldstein differentiate if he felt all of these things were the same? If you're unwilling to work with me to come up with a version that clearly reflects what the source says and intended to say I'll keep reverting it, and/or escalate the issue. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually you should be reported. You are showing yourself to be a consistent reverter to a version you like, which keeps changing (two times falsifying the source), and two editors are perplexed by what you are doing. You have 1,052 edits. The inexperienced who can't grasp WP:OR but keep waving it, should follow procedure and get imput on the OR page. This for example is a threat:'I'll keep reverting it, and/or escalate the issue,' and were any arb to see it would earn you a severe warning. Why, because you are declaring an intent to editwar until you can extort a concession, the grounds for which neither I, nor I believe, Selfstudier, can see any logic to.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to report me, that's your prerogative. But my intent here is to make sure that the page correctly captures what the source says. I am 100% correct in saying the original quote you provided did not support your claim. The more extended quote is now questionable at best. IMO it's WP:OR and you're making guess.

The text you chose to bold is the another way of saying "not inherently antisemitic." It doesn't dispute that there are other ways that BDS might be anti-Semitic. e.g.

...no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism ... but there are still 1,000 ways a boycott movement could be racist against Chinese people.

I'm going to make a good faith effort here to get consensus on things that Goldstein clearly said. I hope you are too.

You skipped my question -- Why would Goldstein differentiate using terms like "inherently antisemitic" and "spurious accusations" if he felt all accusations of anti-Semitism were the same? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't skip anything. I quoted Goldstein's view that accusing BDS of anti-Semitism is a smear. He says that. You are trying to challenge his remark eliciting from the source a distinction (intrinsic/spurious) about the question of anti-Semitism itself, to displace the citation's specific cogency and draw out a discussion on varieties of anti-Semitism, that have nothing to do with what Goldstein said regarding BDS.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Based on a bit more research, I retract the above question, at least for now, because WP:SYNTH seems far more relevant:

"Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source ... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

I think your text in the lead violates syth, and thus needs to be removed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you need to do 'a bit more research' that turns out to be actually consulting a core policy page which we are all supposed to master even before editing, then that only speaks to your lack of familiarity (1,000) with Wikipedia. You have a right to your opinion. So if you think I engaged in WP:Synth, and cannot convince either myself or Selfstudier that my paraphrase is WP:OR, you don't threaten to editwar, and you don't act on the basis of your personal assumption. Protocols requires that you go to an appropriate board and try to get third party input that changes your minority opinion into a consensus. This is the way Wikipedia works. Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the maligning (calling, smearing, whatever, a bunch of words might fit the bill here) is clear cut; as I pointed out ((with an rs) there are two camps, the BDS is antisemitic camp and the hr camp, so which camp do you think the maligners are in? All the OR is on your side, you keep making up alternative explanations for things that don't need any.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The working accpeted defintion is the IHRA https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.42 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? The IHRA is not a canonical text, and many experts question its relevance, coherence, and purpose. I do not understand what you mean by or want from this comment. RolandR (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation (2)

There you go again Bob. you add

On the flip side, Human Rights Watch says it's indisputable that some anti-Semites are using the term "Israel" or "Zionist" in the place of "Jews", and say this needs to be "called out". ""Anti-Boycott Measure Wrong Way to Combat Anti-Semitism"". May 28, 2019.

• 'On the flip side' That is not acceptable in wiki prose.
• The context is an article by Wenzel Michalski, a German director of Human Rights, and must be attributed to him. You apparently do not do so because you are trying to tease some ostensible contradiction in two separate reports by HRW, that doesn't exist. There is no 'flip side', aside from your flippancy. The article is not a backflip on the view, you challenge, from HRW's Eric Goldstein. To the contrary:

Governments like Germany’s are right to be concerned about the virulent cancer of anti-Semitism. But the joint CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis90/Die Grünen motion that passed the Bundestag recently that present boycotts of Israel as anti-Semitic is misplaced and the wrong way to combat anti-Semitism. The German government should reject it. There’s no doubt that some anti-Semites have learned to use the term “Israel” or “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jews.” That should be called out. But it’s also true that legitimate criticism of Israeli state actions is sometimes wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic. Wenzel Michalski, Anti-Boycott Measure Wrong Way to Combat Anti-Semitism The European 28 May 2019

Everybody agrees that anti-Semites using Israel or Zionist to hide what, on inspection, is actually an anti-Semitic hostility, should be called out. A zillion sources state the obvious. There is nothing noteworthy in citing that here to HRW, from an article that specifically attacks legislation and practices in the US designed to counter BDS. Indeed he criticizes the very use of the German/Jewish boycott analogy we cite in the lead. The source clearly suggests acting against BDS is wrong because in international law, many companies are bound not to trade with products produced in an occupied country. It's criminal, even if laws exist within Israel and abroad punishing firms for observing international law. Indeed that point should be in the article. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC) So you editing here consists of serial misrepresentations of sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Summing up Goldstein

As I said earlier, you are unwittingly or not, throwing sand in the eyes of your interlocutors by confusing general statements and specific cases. Since you can't grasp the point, and refuse to seek outside opinion against the skepticism about your inferences from the text, I'll make it crystal-clear by a propositional analysis of the text in question. I know you will jump at this to come back and recycle your objections, but I won't be arguing beyond this. Go seek the consensus you reverts and editwarring on this issue require. I.e.

Goldstein’s piece is subtitled 'Repudiate Trump Slurs against Activists Critical of Israel and its Settlements

• (1) In the first para he says the Trump Administration’s views is that on NGO calls to boycott of Israel over settlements is that they are anti-Semitic. (fact) .
• (2) The American Administration has therefore made efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel,(fact)
• (3) Biden probably won’t end this Trump policy of smearing/maligning. (author’s guess)
• (4) BDS advocates a peaceful boycott to end the occupation, and obtain equal rights for Palestinians in Israel (referring to BDS foundational policy statement of aims) (fact)
• (5) Pompeo tarred BDS as inherrently antisemitic.(fact)
• (6) He went beyond this: he also classified all NGOs who adduce international law as a reason why businesses should not deal with settlements antisemitic. (fact)
• (7)International law is opposed to complicity in abetting human rights violations, of which settlement and business in an occupied territory is an example-(fact)
• (8) US states have legislated to punish companies that support boycotts of Israel.(fact)
• (9) Joe Biden specifically said BDS delegitimizes Israel for its positions. (fact)
• (10) But he fell short of calling it (as Trump did) inherently antisemitic.(fact)
• (11) Within the Biden administration there is a conflict between the statements of the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield who stated that BDS ‘verges on anti-Semitism’ and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who qualified his dislike of BDS by stating the US will respect the First Amendment guarantee of a right to express what one thinks or believes.(facts)
• (12) Goldstein then draws his conclusion in the face of these various positions between the Trump and Biden administrations regarding BDS:

To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism. (this is the view of HRW as expressed by its regional director for the I/P area(EG's opinion, for which he is quoted).

• (13) Goldstein then adds a counsel for the administration that must deal with with malign smearing of BDS inherited from the Trump Administration

Biden, too, should defend free speech rights, which include the right to call for peaceful boycotts, even if he remains anti-BDS. He should also oppose laws that penalize companies seeking to disentangle themselves from rights abuses inherent in Israeli settlements. And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways. (advice)

The unambiguous meaning of this in context is that (a) BDS is not antisemitic and to assert it constitutes maligning. This refers to the specific case of BDS as an NGO (b) the Trump legacy of ‘tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways’ refers not only to BDS but the position Mike Pompeo pushed that all ‘nongovernmental organizations . . that support boycotts of Israel‘ are, ipso facto, anti-Semitic’. (6 above) (b) is the generic statement, not specific to BDS.

This page is about BDS, not about all NGOs with similar boycott proposals. The specific issue is whether it is anti-Semitic. What you are doing is trying to twist and blur the clear distinction in Goldstein’s article between the specific case of BDS (no more antisemitic than a pro-Tibetan org which called for a boycott of China for the similar abuses it commits against the occupied Tibetans would be racist), and the Trump Administrations blasting as antisemitic all NGOs in spurious ways. There is no WP:OR in writing therefore

Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear.

Your attempt to manipulate the text so as to insinuate that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not for HRW's Erik Goldstein BDS is intrinsically or contingently anti-Semitic is POV pushing, and draws on a consistent distortion of straightforward language.

I've done this so you can copy and paste it as my view when you, as protocol requires, address the WP:OR discussion board with your minority complaint. I have responded exhaustively so I won't reply if you try to use the above as a new starting point to 'negotiate'. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: I'm not convinced that the Goldstein material is OR. You could consider adding a relevant quote to the ref if you think that would clarify the prose. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I also don't find the current summation of Goldstein's views to be OR. I am fine with "smear", or "maligned", or a direct quote like "wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic" (stricken quote not from the Goldstein source). I am not sure why Bob drobbs is reverting this material citing failure to get consensus; as it appears more editors have supported it than opposed it. +1 to support now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC) striking 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the "wrongly tarred" quote is from the Michalski HRW source, and I got them mixes up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani rejected getting additional input on the DSN. So, put his request, I've created a new discussion on the OR noticeboard.

^^^^^^ Please move discussion here. ^^^^^^^

And Firefangledfeathers, IMO there's a huge difference between "accusing" and "wrongly accusing". Both cases seem to be SYNTH, but the former case also seems to blatantly distort HRW's view. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, I am not sure what you're referring to. Who said "accusing" or "wrongly accusing"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Let me try again:

Nishidini: "the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear"

Goldstein: ""wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic""

Nishidini's version deleted the word "wrongly", and that changes the meaning. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I paraphrased the article's key point re BDS and the anti-Semitism maligning, not the snippet of a few words in one sentence. Now kindly desist, and listen to others, since you won't listen to me. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

To me “smear” is fine as a paraphrase of “wrongly tarred”(I was wrong about this quote being Goldstein's). I still don’t feel I understand your objection. My parsing of Goldstein is that some are tarring boycotts as antisemitic and that they are wrong to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know, if you were to add a relevant quote from the source as I mentioned above, designed in your view to clarify the prose, what would that quote be?Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for engaging with a legitimate question to gain understanding. I parse the text a bit differently, it says that people like Trump "spuriously" or "wrongly" call BDS anti-Semitic (i.e. every boycott of Israel is racist by nature). But the text deliberately leaves room for others, who are not the topic of this article, to call BDS anti-semitic in ways that are "non-spurious" or "correct" (i.e. some of it's methods are antisemitic).

If Goldstein felt like every single accusation of anti-semitism was false, why would he add qualifications like "spurious"? Why would he differentiate between those who call it "inherently" anti-semitic and those who don't? Goldstein clearly has a problem with Trump and Pompeo, but does NOT imply he objects to other's more nuanced descriptions of BDS's antisemitism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, what? "To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism." Selfstudier (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:I'm sincerely hoping that you're willing to listen. The quote you pulled up, yet again leaves room for racism from a boycott movement:

e.g. "To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians ... but if the goals and strategies of this boycott are racist, or many of it's members chant racist anti-Chinese slurs, then that movement is racist."

Goldstein _never_ said all accusations of anti-semitism are wrong. Please note that the HRW called out Trump and Pompeo, they did _not_ call out the German Parliament who said: "The pattern of argument and methods of the BDS movement are anti-Semitic" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the quote above, that seems pretty clear to me and this discussion also seems rather pointless because it seems to make no difference whatsoever what anyone says here, you just keep right on going, classic WP:IDHT.Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty position

We currently have

"Amnesty International does not take a position on BDS, except to say that advocacy of boycotts in general is an expression of freedom of speech." sourced to a August 2019 statement.

However This November 2020 statement takes a stronger line.

"The US administration is following Israeli government’s approach in using false and politically motivated accusations of antisemitism to harm peaceful activists, including human rights defenders, and shield from accountability those responsible for illegal actions that harm people in Israel, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and here at home...." as well as

"Advocating for boycotts, divestment and sanctions is a form of non-violent advocacy and of free expression that must be protected. Advocates of boycotts should be allowed to express their views freely and take forward their campaigns without harassment, threats of prosecution or criminalization, or other measures that violate the right to freedom of expression." and

"We will continue to support our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, including BDS activists, who like human rights defenders around the world, speak up when justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied."

References

Anyone like to precis that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Various possibilities. If this can replace the now slightly inaccurate ref to AI, we should restrict an alternative phrasing, with this source, to the 25 words we have for the present ref to A1's position

Amnesty International, stating that the US Administration and Israel both used false claims of anti-Semitism to harm peace activists and limit free speech, expressed support for BDS members.

Hm, that is 3 words over. I'll par it back, when I've had a cuppa.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech.

26 words Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech.

26 words Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The NPOV balance per wordage should be 56: (BDS is anti-Semitic) balanced by 56 (it is not). If we included the above, it would be unbalanced in favour of the defense against the charge. I.e.

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism says "Boycott, divestment, and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states,"[19] and that boycotting Israel is not inherently antisemitic.[20] Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech. Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear

amounting to 68 words, 12 beyond our self-imposed limit.

If one wrote:

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism excludes BDS from its definition, stating boycotts against Israel are not inherently antisemitic Amnesty International, in support of BDS, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech. Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the antisemitic charge against BDS a smear.

That's 56 words, perfect parity in wordage. The footnote for a quote would solve the issue.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The description that the Jersusalem Declaration "excludes BDS" should be removed because it's repetitive and confusing. See ezlev's comments above. The only thing it excludes it from is being inherently anti-semitic. This feels like POV pushing and trying to do everything possible to mislead people into thinking these sources claim BDS _cannot_ be antisemitic:

I did a lot of work on the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism article, and it's clear to me that this is a key point: the document doesn't say that BDS and related efforts are not antisemitic but rather that they are not antisemitic in and of themselves. However, I believe it's also true that the JDA explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel from its definition of antisemitism: that is, it explicitly states that efforts to boycott Israel are not in and of themselves antisemitic. What I'm saying is that these two phrasings have the same intended meaning. Of the two, though, only the current wording can be misinterpreted as saying that the JDA defines boycotts of Israel as never antisemitic.

As for the claims that Amnesty International the Us and Israel did something, the "who" and "when" needs to be clarified. You appear to be pushing the idea that Trump is synonymous with USA and Netanyahu is synonymous with Israel. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Query about the self-imposed word count: What did you count?? This sentence seems neutral, and I'd actually suggest cutting everything after the comma to get rid of the of the verbosity in the paragraph.

Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, where 30 states have banned the implementation of boycott and disinvestment measures proposed by BDS.

This could become simply: "Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit adds another 4 words, so no parity: 60 to 56. Put in German Parliament, and you are asking editors to react by adding in the next sentences, that the German parliament proposal is regarded by one of our sources as misplaced. Then you could add the United States' measures etc.etc.etc. That is how ill-considered tampering invites editwarring. But the most serious part of your error is writing 'it's' for 'its'. Really, if you can't tell the elementary difference between the two, arguing about how to précis shouldn't be on your agenda.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The description that the Jersusalem Declaration "excludes BDS" should be removed because it's repetitive and confusing

Several simple words in an orderly sentence cannot be construed as 'repetitive'. Good grief.

You quote with approval in Green Ezlev's remark. Have you read it? It reads:-

I believe it's also true that the JDA explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel from its definition of antisemitism: that is, it explicitly states that efforts to boycott Israel are not in and of themselves antisemitic.

These weird contradictions are too frequent in your remarks, and because they are disattentive, only lead to the kind of endless repetitiveness that mars the discussions above. Please take more time to parse correctly what others state, and you intend to argue.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You skipped over the other half of the sentence.

I believe it's also true that the JDA explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel from its definition of antisemitism: that is, it explicitly states that efforts to boycott Israel are not in and of themselves antisemitic.

Please stop the ad-hominem arguments, especially on talk pages. Please restrict to discussing the content of the text and what the sources says, instead things you think about me. I'm making this comment here, because you've insisted I not comment on your talk page:

And in terms of ezlev's message, you overlooked this:

...What I'm saying is that these two phrasings have the same intended meaning. Of the two, though, only the current wording can be misinterpreted as saying that the JDA defines boycotts of Israel as never antisemitic.

His point was very clear, and you're yet again advocating for the version of the wording he said can be misinterpreted to be included in the lead. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I think attempts to turn the lead into a laundry list of who supports/doesn't support BDS is misplaced. The first sentence encapsulates the issue in general terms, AS vs HR, that's it ie if you are HR/rights supporter you are likely to at least condone if not actively support BDS and if you think it is AS, you won't, it really isn't any more complicated than that in the final analysis, all the wordsmithing notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur. We had a nice, evening balanced third para (balanced if you ignore the footnotes for the anti-Semitism accusation, which contain material that is pointless. Alan Dershowitz is not a reliable source, but can stay in as far as I'm (un)concerned. The recent changes are, indeed, overegging the pud to give a heavier spin to a charge neutral sources are sceptical of. We had a generalization, three charges, and three responses 56/56. That is NPOV, and tweaking for advantage in disregard to the larger issue of balance, parity, and terseness is tantamount to POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that the lead would be improved if it stops being a laundry list of supporters and opponents. It's been an escalation since Nishidani did the first name drop. Here's the lead as of October 2:

"According to critics BDS is antisemitic,[13] seeks to delegitimize Israel,[14] and resembles historical discrimination against Jews.[15] Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, which has been successful in over 30 U.S. states in putting in place measures that confront BDS activities.[16]"

I suggest reverting it back to this point. Then adding one sentence, similar to the anti-semitism sentence, which correctly summarizes the Amnesty International, HRW, and Jerusalem Declaration positions. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This fails to recognize the sea change in opinion that led to the need to rebalance the lead to begin with, certainly anti-BDS forces were in the ascendancy until about a year ago, the situation is markedly different now. By laundry, I was actually referring to your ADL and German parliament additions, both of little or no consequence so speaking for myself it makes no difference whether they stay. If I were going to do anything at all, I would lose the lot except the first sentence but again I am not that concerned about it. This lead has consensus as it stands so might as well leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Interesting that you don't see the Jerusalem Declaration, Amnesty, and HRW to be a "laundry list" too.

As for Amnesty's position, the text needs to be changed to past tense. Amnesty was speaking about things under Trump and Netanyahu, who are no longer in power. There's no hint that they believe this is an ongoing pattern.

"make false claims" => "have made false claims"

And really, the original source should be put back up and the text should be fully clarified for the reader that Amnesty was specifically referring to Netanahu and Trump's administrations. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What you refer to as the original source is a policy position superseded by the new policy statement which is much stronger than previously, "We will continue to support our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, including BDS activists, who like human rights defenders around the world, speak up when justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied." (We could quote this but we were trying to keep it short as I recall). Should Amnesty alter their position once again, it will of course be incorporated in the article. I have however altered the text to make it clear that it was the then current Trump admin that was following Israeli policy, a policy of successive Israeli administrations including the current one as far as I am aware, no particular Israeli administration was referred to.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)