Europe

In the following, I use the Jerusalem definition of Antisemitism: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)."

The aim of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign is to “end the occupation” of “all Arab lands” by Israel “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands”) 40, i.e. ultimately the abolition of the Israeli state.

A good faith and strictly textual reading of these aims could just be understood to mean the occupation of the 1967 territories, a perfectly legitimate political goal. The ultimate abolition of the Israeli state is a bad faith interpretation. But also, even if it were an actual political goal, it's not antisemitic. In a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives, with full and equal rights with citizens of other religions, just like they do in many Western countries and like other ethnic groups (e.g. the Québécois, the Waloons, or the Catalonians) do in other countries. If the authors of this text cannot imagine this to be feasible, that is just a failure of their own moral ambition, and potentially also an internalized bias and racism against Arabs and Muslims, imagining them incapable of being co-equal citizens of democratic liberal republics.

The binding ideological leitmotif of the network behind the BDS campaign is thus the negation of Israel’s right to exist.

States don't have the right to exist. Greece, Germany, Canada, the Soviet Union, or the Byzantine Empire don't have the right to exist. The people living in states have the right to live and the right to self-determination, and so obviously do Israeli and Jewish people. But states are social constructs that don't have inalienable rights. See above how the goal of a bi- or pluri-national democratic liberal successor state can guarantee these rights to all people, including of course to Jews and Israelis.

The instrument of the comprehensive boycott aims to inflict considerable damage on the state and the population that is equated with it.

It's a non-violent and non-coercive campaign. It tries to convince people to apply economic pressure. It does not compel anyone to do anything. Boycotts are legitimate non-violent pressure tactics. In this particular case, the BDS campaign has been specifically a call from Palestinian Civil Society, as a way for people to peacefully apply pressure to Israel to end their oppression. It's not antisemitic, because it does not target Jews as such, it targets Israeli institutions and corporations to try to influence their behaviour, a perfectly legitimate political objective. It also does not single out Israel, since it is specifically a project initiated by a population that Israel oppresses. It would be absurd to claim that Tibetan calls to apply pressure to China «single out China». It's specifically the issue that affects them.

For one of the conceptual masterminds of the BDS campaign, the duo-listic contrast between the Israeli “oppressive regime” on the one hand and “almost the entire Palestinian population” on the other is at the heart of the Middle East conflict, whereby Israel is unilaterally assigned the role of being solely responsible for the conflict.41

The language of "conceptual masterminds" reveals extreme bias. Multiple reputable human rights organizations have documented the oppressive regime inflicted on the occupied Palestinian population. Pointing this out is not antisemitic. Furthermore, assigning the sole responsibility for the conflict to Israel is not in itself antisemitic. It is a political assessment about the actions of a polity that has nothing to do with the Jewish character of the polity.

At its core, the BDS campaign aims to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Hostility towards Israel is a key element of the Berlin BDS network.

That again is an extremely bad faith interpretation of the campaign's intents and is by no means an objective assessment. Hostility towards Israel is not antisemitic, in this context because it is not driven by its Jewish character but by its actions and its impact on the lives of the oppressed people that this campaign is seeking to give voice to. A good faith interpretation of the group's aim would be that if Israel were to cease its oppressive policies and adopt a policy of Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations towards the Palestinians, the hostility would gradually disappear.

Its supporters and supporters reject Israel’s right to exist.

See my previous point.

On the internet, for example, some of them called for an “intifada” or the “annihilation of the Zionists” .42

An intifada is a violent resistance movement. According to international law, that Germany ostensibly accepts, Palestinians as an occupied people have the right to armed resistance against occupation, within the confines of international law. And of course, antisemitism has nothing to do with violent resistance against occupation. The "annihilation of the Zionists" line is of course problematic. But it is given out of context, and as seen above, this institution seems to be taking the worst bad faith interpretations of the positions of the group. I therefore reserve final judgement, as some contexts might make this line more specific (such as for example if by "Zionists" they mean active duty soldiers, engaged in battle). That said, I would also caution that mean things that some people with questionable links to the organization say online is not serious grounds for condemning an entire organization.

For years, they have been involved in individual boycott campaigns, such as against , a sporting goods manufacturer accused of collaborating with of the Israeli soccer league.

This follows from their mandate. This is a non-violent pressure tactic aimed at changing behaviour, not at violence. See also previous comments.

Finally, Berlin BDS supporters justified and/or glorified the terrorist attack by HAMAS on October 7, 2023.44 In official statements, the attack was described as a “liberation struggle against settler colonialism” or welcomed as an escape from the “open-air prison” Gaza.45

Let us unpack this. Calling Israeli domination settler colonialism is not antisemitism. Calling Gaza an open air prison is not antisemitism. Calling something a "liberation struggle" in and of itself is not necessarily justification or glorification, if read in good faith it can be just an accurate description of an event. The October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas involved hideous atrocities and crimes against innocent people. Two things can be true: those are hideous crimes against humanity that should be persecuted to the fullest extent under international law AND they are a (very very dark, criminal, and disgusting) page in a long struggle for liberation. Such contradictions are not unknown to history. Nat Turner's Rebellion was part of the wider anti-slavery liberation struggle, even if it involved hideous atrocities and crimes. The fall of Tripolitsa involved hideous crimes by the Greeks against the Ottoman civilian population, and was at the same time part of the Greek liberation struggle. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hideous crimes against humanity, and at the same time part of the global antifascist struggle. Identifying this deplorable acts as parts of a larger liberation struggle does not take away anything from their absolute horror.

But, regardless, it is intellectually dishonest to characterize the (hideous) October 7th attack specifically as "antisemitic". The criminal perpetrators were not motivated by hatred of jews as being jews, but by hatred of Israelis as being occupiers. I.e., not hatred for what they are but what they do. Obviously it was blind hatred directed at innocent people who didn't "do" anything of course, and as I've mentioned multiple times a hideous crimes against humanity. But it is good to be careful about what we call antisemitic.

They were also an integral part of the anti-Israel scene, which was responsible for a large number of anti-Israel events.

Being anti-Israel is not being antisemitic in itself, especially since this is a group motivated by opposition to Israeli policy, employing a non-violent, non-coercive tactic to change Israeli policy.

They initiated and organized these events in alliances with left-wing extremist and Islamist groups, such as the VPNK.

I don't know what the VPNK is, and search does not bring anything up. Still, left-wing and islamist is not the same as antisemitic.

Signs with stereotypical anti-Jewish imagery were repeatedly displayed at these events.

That is of course deplorable. Given however the bad faith misinterpratations I have seen in the rest of the text, I would like to see specifically what they are talking about. Greta Thunberg was accused of promoting antisemitic imagery for example, and it was ridiculous.

Speakers from the BDS campaign denied the brutal dimension of the terror of 7 October 2023.

That is of course deplorable. But callousness itself is not antisemitic.

At a demonstration on 2 March under the slogan “Solidarity with Palestine” , a BDS speaker also openly explained that the slogan “From the river to the sea […]” undoubtedly meant the ‘abolition’ of the “colonial project” of Israel.___

As explained above, this is not an antisemitic political goal, to the degree that what is envisioned is a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, and where Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives.