>> 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

>> 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