Hacker News Reader

Comment by adolph | Hacker News Reader

Thank you. I likewise am not making an argument for or against any specific thing but instead ask out of curiosity as the constitution is a thing from which much complexity has evolved.

I can see the similarity to Claiborne and the differences since in the case of Claiborne:

* there was a specific petition (of which I'm not aware in the case of the Israel boycott, but may exist)

* the boycott's target was a domestic entity as opposed to a foreign nation, which seems to go around traditional prohibitions against individuals conducting foreign policy

View on HN

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. The idea is that Roger Waters (yes, that Roger Waters) wants you to stop buying Sabre Hummus and Puma products.

If the below is representative, then it is quite a bit more than that.

BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support from Israel's apartheid regime, complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions, and from all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights.

https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

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."

>> 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/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Reply on news.ycombinator.com