13 ms·
> Israel is its own nation and it isn't America's business what it does to its own citizens. I would argue that as long as Israel is lobbying the US to make it
by ForgotMyPwOops 5y ago
> Israel is its own nation and it isn't America's business what it does to its own citizens.
I would argue that as long as Israel is lobbying the US to make it illegal for Americans to boycott Israel it is in fact our business
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
> The spread of anti-BDS laws in U.S. states is largely due to the lobbying of the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), an umbrella group of Israel lobbies headquartered in Jerusalem that has received funding from the Israeli government
- yonixw 5y agoBDS != The only way to criticize Israel. Lobbing against BDS has a pretty simple cause... From the same page: > ... A dozen local and national parliaments have passed symbolic resolutions condemning BDS. Most of these condemnations have alleged that BDS is anti-Semitic. Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Spain...
- ForgotMyPwOops 5y agoDo you believe boycotting is protected speech? Do you believe American citizens should be allowed to choose who they boycott?
- yonixw 5y agoI do. But I don't if it's anti-Semitic. And that's the whole question. Seems like many agree it's the latter.
- ForgotMyPwOops 5y agoWho decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it
- denton-scratch 5y ago> Who decides what is antisemitic? There's a trend towards allowing complainants to define what actions are discriminatory, and therefore criminal. It's weird.
- yonixw 5y ago> Who decides what is antisemetic? The Majority. > Some arbiter Nope. The Majority. > if that's all it takes to silence it Nope. anti-semetic is kinda big deal. We all should treat it as such and run from it like fire.
- ForgotMyPwOops 5y agoShould all speech be up for vote? Should all opinions that the majority disagree with be banned? I believe weakening protections such as free speech, which are used by the vulnerable to call attention to their plights, is much more likely to hurt Jewish people than allowing ostensibly antisemitic expression to exist
- spywaregorilla 5y agoMore like the plurality of vocal subset.
- worik 5y agoAt one point, in my home land (Aotearoa) it was considered perfectly reasonable by the majority to bring teams of white South Africans into the country to play games. They were whit South Africans because they would not allow black South Africans in their teams. The minority here fought long and hard to stop it, lost the battle (the team came and played their games against our local teams) but now are recognised as heros. No. It is not the majority who decides what is right and wrong.
- buzzwords 5y agoNope, if majority believe A, doesn't make A true. It just means majority believe A. Public opinion is very malleable. Hence the existence of marketing.
- deleted 5y ago
- random314 5y agoThere is a difference between 1. Anti Israel 2. Anti Semitic 3. Anti Apartheid And it cant be decided by the majority.
- ornel 5y agoConsidering an apartheid state synonymous with Judaism is incredibly anti Semitic and promotes antisemitism
- azth 5y agoIt's not anti-Semitic, let's be honest with ourselves.
- jonnydubowsky 5y agoanti-BDS regulations, implemented through either legislation or a governor’s order, require businesses contracting with the state to affirm that they are not participating in a boycott of Israel. I don't know of any laws that have attempted to silence individual citizens or direct their ability to protest as individuals (not businesses who also want government contracts).
- eli_gottlieb 5y agoAnti-BDS "laws" are the most idiotic culture-war bullshit the American political system has come up with in the past five years. Secondary boycotts imposed by contract terms were illegal decades ago, and so all these new "laws" are entirely symbolic. It's the worst kind of political red meat, too, because both sides take the bait as if something was actually happening.
- jonnydubowsky 5y agoI agree. I think the argument that there is some infringement on constitutionally protected speech is unfounded. The issues to argue over (and context) is complicated enough as it is.
- denton-scratch 5y agoBoycotting doesn't seem to me to be a form of speech. It's just people choosing where to spend their money. Divestment is similar - people choose what to invest in and what not to invest in. Campaigning for BDS does seem to be speech, and regrettably institutions seem to have gathered around the view that it's antisemitic speech.
- colpabar 5y agoDo you think that maybe the lobbying groups funded by israel had something to do with those resolutions being passed?
- yonixw 5y agoI do, but, If it also happened in Germany and France which frequently criticize Israel, seems like it anti-BDS has nothing to do with silencing criticizing Israel... because they haven't stopped since.
- colpabar 5y agoAnother way to look at it is that it isn’t about stopping criticism if the criticism has no effect. Serious boycotts can be very effective, but “criticism” from politicians can be meaningless.
- pydry 5y agoIsrael is pretty tolerant of meek criticism and regular old antisemitism (e.g. like that employed by their allies Orban and evangelicals/southern baptists). BDS constitutes much more of an existential threat to the state - they're keenly aware of its pivotal role in taking down apartheid South Africa. That is, it's the explicit anti-racist grass roots and history of the movement that they object to so vehemently. This is why they routunely throw out unfounded accusations of antisemitism & throw all the quite considerable lobbying firepower they have in key countries to try and stamp it out. Support for killing BDS in other countries is as a result, indirectly, an accurate bellwether of which politicians will support/tolerate racism and which politicians can be bought (e.g. Trump - big ally, easily bought, largely pro-racism). There are some in most countries.
- bastardoperator 5y agoLet's not forget the 4 billion in American tax dollars they except every year for "defense".