3 ms·
You're correct. It is much more then I implied. My point was that for people outside Israel, it's difficult to boycott a governmental body. Also, it's importa
by sndman 5y ago
You're correct. It is much more then I implied. My point was that for people outside Israel, it's difficult to boycott a governmental body.
Also, it's important to mention that the academic boycott if Israeli institutions is an important component of the BDS movement. A general boycott is necessary because there is a moral imperative to end the occupation and only outside pressure, like the pressure that was exerted on the apartheid regime in South Africa, can perhaps achieve this.
Why academia? Because Israeli academia is also a mouthpiece of the establishment and is used to
enable Israel to present itself abroad as "the only democracy in the Middle East."
- adolph 5y ago>> In the case of this BDS campaign, the actual boycott is not against the nation of Israel. It's mainly to boycott products of companies that are complicit in Israel's violations of Palestinian rights. > It is much more then I implied. Is this an inverse form of motte and bailey argumentation? Are there any institutions associated with Israel that BDS would not cover? How can a disinterested person distinguish between a moral imperative based boycott and run of the mill anti-semitism (Baptist and Bootlegger problem)? Would a constitutional test for the Texas law fail if the petitioner's motivation were the latter or does it not make a difference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists