BDS applies an unfair double standard to Israel

The argument

It can be argued that there are no boycott, divestment and sanctions movements against countries that commit atrocities against their own citizens that are comparable to the intensity of the boycotts against Israel, despite Israel being the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. The “3-Ds of Anti-Semitism” is a set of criteria created by Israeli politician, Natan Sharansky, that is recognized by the United States Department of State and is meant to help us distinguish between legitimate criticisms of Israel and actual anti-semitic statements. According to this criteria, anti-semitic arguments include those that delegitimize Israel, demonize Israel, or apply double standards to Israel that are not applied to other nations. BDS is argued to fall into the third category of anti-semitism. The state-sponsored genocide of Uyghurs Muslims in China is one example of human rights violations being committed in a country that is not Israel, and so is “Syria's government dropping ‘barrel bombs’ filled with nails, shrapnel and other instruments of terror on its own cities. Where is the boycott of Syria? And of Iran, which hangs political, religious and even sexual dissidents and has no academic freedom at all? Or Egypt, where Christians are being openly persecuted? Or Turkey, Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, massively repressive Russia?” Israel is the world's only Jewish state, and “is the leading stable democracy in the Middle East, with all of the institutions – a free press, a multitude of political parties, an independent judiciary and religious freedom — that are at the heart of true liberal democracies. The Middle East, and indeed the world, has many states that do not come close to living up toIsrael's standards. Criticism of Israel, like criticism of any other sovereign country in the world, can be reasonable and legitimate. But BDS campaigns, which single out Israel for pariah status, are unfair and disproportionate.” In some cases, the motivation behind the intense criticisms of Israel could be a desire to see the world's sole Jewish state be destabilized and undermined.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics of this argument dispute the test it applies. The 'three Ds' was proposed by a politician as a rule of thumb, and while it has been cited in official settings it is one framework among several: the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, drafted by scholars of antisemitism and Jewish history, holds explicitly that boycott and divestment aimed at a state's policies are not antisemitic in themselves. Adopting one contested criterion and treating its output as a finding assumes the point at issue. The selectivity objection is also weaker than it appears because it applies to activism generally. Campaigns are always selective, and they cluster where activists believe they have leverage and where their own governments are implicated through aid, arms sales, trade agreements or diplomatic cover — which is why campaigning in Western countries has long focused on states their taxes and exports help sustain. Boycott campaigns against other states do exist, from apartheid South Africa historically to Myanmar and Russia more recently. Selectivity indicates where movements think they can act, and an inference from it to hostility toward Jews requires a further premise the argument does not supply. The movement's own framing complicates the inference further. Its stated demands are expressed in terms of policy and international law, and it is supported by some Jewish and Israeli organisations while opposed by many others — a distribution difficult to reconcile with a straightforward reading as antisemitism, whatever one concludes about its aims or effects. Two formal points also weigh against the entry as written. Its closing move — that the motivation 'could be' a desire to undermine the state — attributes motive by speculation. And a substantial portion of the text is quoted at length from a source that is never identified.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The 'three Ds' is one contested framework among several, proposed as a rule of thumb by a political figure, and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism — drafted by scholars of antisemitism and Jewish history — holds explicitly that boycott and divestment directed at a state's policies are not antisemitic in themselves, so applying the test and reporting its output assumes what is at issue. [Rejecting P2] Selectivity is a feature of activism generally: campaigns cluster where activists believe they have leverage and where their own governments are implicated through aid, arms sales and trade, and boycott campaigns against other states do exist — so the absence of comparable campaigns elsewhere evidences where movements think they can act rather than animus toward Jews. [Rejecting C] The inference requires a further premise the argument does not supply, and is complicated by the movement's framing of its demands in terms of policy and international law and by the support of some Jewish and Israeli organisations alongside the opposition of many others; the closing suggestion that the motivation 'could be' a desire to undermine the state also attributes motive by speculation, and a substantial portion of the text is quoted at length from an unidentified source.