Talk:Boycotts of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Purposes[edit]

We need to add something about the goal of the campaigns. Homey 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You meant to say, you need. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we do, as an encyclopedia and as editors - it's your responsibility too you know. It makes no sense to talk of a boycott without discussion what it's objective is. Remember the W5 rule, we are missing the fifth W.Homey 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the intro right now is that it only contains part of the goals of some of the participants. It doesn't say anything about the nations and people that want Israel to be wiped off the map entirely, even though most of them have claimed to renounce that idea for public relations purposes. The boycotts started before Israel controlled the West Bank and even before Israel existed. I don't think all of this needs to be cluttering up the lead anyway, it should be in its own little section lower in the article, maybe with a section-stub tag. The addition of the sentence about "apartheid" is just so blatant in its motivation that I don't even know what to say about it. Within time, I doubt there will be any article on Wikipedia that mentions Israel to which someone will not have added a mention of apartheid. Also, the actions of the Red Cross in boycotting Israel for many years are part of the whole series of boycotts, so the actions of the Red Cross and their recent reversal do belong in the article. That material should be added back. I cannot do the editing right now, but will get back to it over the weekend if nobody else has done it first. 6SJ7 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Calling the ICRC actions a boycott is highly controversial. If you can find some reliable reference it might be acceptable to include it but only in a very limited fashion. It was part of an existing policy which would have been applied to any member who did not use an official symbol. I'm sure if India or Sri Lanka and gone ahead and used the Swastika as their symbol you wouldn't be calling the decision of the red cross to refuse to recognise the Indian or Sri Lankan Red Swastika a boycott of India or Sri Lanka (due to racial prejuicide). Also, you might want to read up on wikipedia policies with regards to NPOV and similar matters. This article is primarily about the boycotts NOT about the policies and beliefs of the countries and people involved in the boycotts. There might be some justification to including very brief mention that SOME (not all) of the people and countries wish Israel to be wiped of the map and the alleged/purported links to the boycotts policies with suitable references but we have to be very careful. It would be just as wrong to go in to great detail of Israel's controversial policies including kidnapping (e.g. Vanunu), assasination, collective punishment, destruction of civilian infrastructure etc etc etc. N.B. To avoid confusion, I should state I am not suggesting Israel's policies are comparable to the policies of Nazi Germany or that the Star of David has the same connotations of the swastika. Nil Einne 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitive article[edit]

Not sure about the boycott of israel, they are separate boycotts. --Coroebus 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict[edit]

"The proposed boycott of Israel refers to a series of political campaigns designed to weaken and isolate the State of Israel as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I think not. Some may be considered part of the conflict (e.g. Arab nation boycotts) but certainly not the others. --Coroebus 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If you choose sides - e.g. punish one side but not the other for similar actions - you become a participant in the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, stated another way, the academic and religious institutions boycotting Israel have injected themselves into the conflict and are therefore part of it. Everyone involved in a boycott may not have the same goals, but they are all trying to "weaken and islolate" Israel in order to exert pressure in an effort to change Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which is part of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. 6SJ7 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If I may respectfully disagree, I think it is OR to state that this is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may think it is, but I personally don't, nor do many others, so we can't definitively refer to it as such. --Coroebus 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The people who want the boycotts are trying to force Israel to adopt a certain political position, so their actions are certainly part of the conflict. Conflicts are not only fought using violence. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The 'Arab-Israeli conflict', at least as far as I understand it, is a conflict between the Arab nations and Israel (militarily, or whatever, into which the Arab boycott certainly does fit). But the drive for a two-state solution or Palestinian rights is not necessarily part of such a conflict (i.e. I don't think many Palestinian rights activists, particularly abroad, would be impressed by being labelled as protagonists in the Arab-Israeli conflict). As a parallel, support for the civil rights of Northern Irish Catholics was not necessarily part of the Republican/British conflict. At present I hold your position to be OR, and am minded to change it, unless you can provide good reason for me to accept your position, which your above comment does not represent. --Coroebus 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Brian Eno an Arab? I would guess there are many participating in the boycotts who see this as a Human rights issue. The info box presents only a "you are with us or against us" framing that artificially assigns motives to those involved in the various boycotts. RomaC (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming silence=consent would like to go ahead remove the Arab-Israeli Conflict infobox as most of the citations in the article refer to boycotts imposed by non-Arabs. Also the infobox does not appear in other articles about Israel boycotts other than the Arab boycott article, where it belongs. RomaC (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, for reasons above, will remove the Arab-Israeli Conflict infobox as no objection has been raised in one year. RomaC (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Given the current state of this article and the Arab economic boycott of Israel article, I do not understand why there are two articles. I understand there is an issue about whether a particular "boycott" is one boycott or several boycotts, but I think that at this point it is clear that this article is about a series of boycotts all against the same target, though not necessarily for the same reasons. (In most of the cases the reasons are a matter of debate anyway, as I mention above.) Perhaps this article should be moved to something like "Economic and academic boycotts of Israel," the material from the "Arab boycott" article moved here (where there is already a section for it), and the "Arab boycott" article changed into a redirect to this one. 6SJ7 23:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Just to add, if there is a single article, the material Zeq had put in, about the Red Cross, could have its own little section. It definitely should go in somewhere as it is part of the whole series of boycotts going back more than 80 years, that a single article would be about. 6SJ7 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. Zeq, thanks for moving that material into the intro. It reads better this way. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea --Coroebus 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice, I moved this article so the name refers to boycotts, plural. The new name is something of a compromise and maybe someone has a better idea. "Boycotts of Israel," by itself, didn't sound right, especially when it is my intention to merge "Arab economic boycott of Israel" into this article, and I assume the word "economic" got into the title for some reason. "Economic, cultural, social, academic and athletic boycotts of Israel" seemed a bit unwieldy. Because all of the various means of boycott (economic, cultural, etc.) are aimed at a political goal, I decided "Economic and political" was a reasonable shorthand. 6SJ7 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to discourage...[edit]

I notice this sentence that I included was removed with the comment "rm "in order to discourage Jewish settlement" - why do they need excuses? Should we excuse the Nazis then?", I should like to point out that I added the text to explain why someone would have a boycott of a state that didn't even exist, it is hardly an excuse. Secondly, we really are here to provide an insight into motivation (where there is evidence available). Thirdly, I think the Nazi comparison is incredibly unproductive. --Coroebus 18:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Nazi line
and note similarities with the Nazi boycotts of Jews of the 1930s.
because I can't find such a claim in any of the cited article. Specifically, article 5 which appeared to be the source doesn't appear to make any comparisons between the boycotts of the state of Israel to the Nazi boycotts of the Jewish people. I'm aware that some people claim that the boycotts are motivated (at least partially) out of anti-semitism not solely because of the policies of Israel or otherwise are not justifable in relation to Israel's policies. And I'm sure there are some that even go as far as to link them to the Nazi boycotts but we at least need a cite if we are going to include such a controversial claim. Nil Einne 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the ref [1] that immediately follows? The cartoon caption says: Title: Away with him. The long arm of the Ministry of Education pulls a Jewish teacher from his classroom. March 1933 (Issue #12) Caricatures from "Der Sturmer" Source: German Propaganda Archive.Humus sapiens ну? 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's[edit]

McDonald's didn't have any outlets in the Arab world before they opened outlets in Israel, so the example can't be correct. Rmsharpe 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli boycott & USA law[edit]

This section looks weak, the laws are quite draconian. Believe the largest fine is up to $50,000 US per quarter or 5 years in prison.

Ribicoff Amendment -1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA) prohibits US Citizens/companies from boycotting Israel in the USA, so do 1977 changes to the Export Administration Act (EAA). These laws were specifically setup to stop participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes of Israel.

"a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, which ever is greater, may be imposed in addition to imprisonment of up to five years."

"The TRA requires taxpayers to report "operations" in, with, or related to a boycotting country or its nationals and requests received to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. The Treasury Department publishes a quarterly list of "boycotting countries.""[2]

May write a section explaining these laws and how they got enacted. 82.29.227.171 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Boycott law in the US is so stupid, and shows the US govt is taking sides.

human rights abuses?[edit]

To say that the reason for boycotts is "to protest Israel's alleged human rights abuses" is POV. Even if we leave aside the question why countries whose "alleged human rights abuses" are much worse that Israel's are not subjected to such treatment and even if we leave aside the dreadful history of the boycott that confutes this POV, other opinions exist why Israel is being singled out. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the stated reason for the boycotts, whatever you think the real reason is, and so it should be reported as such. Deuterium 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
First, the Arab boycotts began in 1920. What were the "human rights abuses" then? Israeli occupation of 1967, no doubt. Second, I can show instances when The Protocols of Zion were stated as a reason. Why don't we list that? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question is referring to the recent boycotts [i]outside[/i] the Arab world, specifically in the West (e.g. church divestments and so forth). The stated reason for all of these boycotts in the West is to protest the treatment of the Palestinians, not a desire to destroy Israel. To lump Western boycotts in with the Arab League boycott is to fundamentally misrepresent the issue. Deuterium 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is described in the corresponding section and has no place in the intro. If you insist on adding it, then criticism should be added into the intro as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

This section of the article is flawed for two reasons. The first is that while the section does begin with appropriate mention of criticism of the boycott, the third and fourth sentences, which make up more than half of the section, discuss "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations" which support the ban. This is not appropriate content for a section entitled "criticism". Additionally, these "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations" do not seem to be representative of popular Israeli opinion. The Wikipedia article on Gush Shalom describes the group as claiming that "Israel is commiting war crimes [on Palestinians] on a daily basis". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Shalom Matzpun is a similar orginization. Posted on its website http://www.matzpun.com, Matzpun writes "The inhumane oppressor [Israel] hopes that starving will help force the Palestinians to surrender" and discusses the "Israeli government's policies of killing civilians - men, women and children". These standpoints seem more representative of Palestinian groups than "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations", regardless of one's personal views in the matter.

That's the whole point—these are prominent Israeli organizations, and the fact that their opinion do not correspond to the opinion of the general public is what makes it notable. It's actually pretty well known that the academics and academic organizations of Israel have a far more critical view than the Israelis themselves do. I'd like to assume good faith here, but it would seem to be blatantly obvious pro-Israel bias to remove the statements of these organizations because "these Israeli organizations seem to have pro-Palestinia opinions". 195.241.69.171 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Loose wording[edit]

The U.S. Anti-boycott laws do not prohibit inhabitants of the U.S. from individually boycotting Israel (everybody is free to buy where they want), it prohibits inhabitants of the U.S. from making agreements with a third party to boycott Israel... AnonMoos 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Split out Academic boycotts of Israel into its own article?[edit]

There is a discussion on the Talk:New anti-Semitism page as to whether we should split out all the material relevant to the recent academic boycott attempts and responses to its own article.

Leflyman wrote that:

"I'd say that the associated Academic boycotts section should likewise be developed as a separate article (Academic boycotts of Israel), differentiated from the Economic and political boycotts of Israel, which says very little about the prominence of on-campus movements."

SlimVirgin wrote that:

"It's a good idea to have something on that. Not sure we have enough on the subject in this article to justify starting another page. Do you think we do?"

I wrote that:

"A couple months ago I figured that eventually there would be an article like Academic boycotts of Israel. In order to give such a potentially contentious article context I started work on a similar article relating to the academic boycott of South Africa. See:
Academic boycott of South Africa (I just moved it from a draft within my userspace, it needs major clean-up from other contributors, hint hint)
Many of the same issues arise with that boycott as with the current one, although of course there are many differences."

Anyways, figured the best place to report this discussion is on this page.

I have just done a first pass at the Academic boycotts of Israel article. --Ben Houston 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boycott Israel - The Palestinian Campaign for Boycott Divestment Sanctions Against Israel.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Boycott Israel - The Palestinian Campaign for Boycott Divestment Sanctions Against Israel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A remark: I do not see the problem with using any of the symbols above; Israeli flag, Palestinian flag, The BDS campaign logo. I think it’s a legitimate way of expressing once ideas or options. Shahar12000@yahoo.com Shahar .H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.203.74 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disinvestment" verses "Economic boycott"[edit]

One thing that appears to be confused or conflated in this article is the concept of "disinvestment" and the idea of an "economic boycott". While this may seem like a moot point, it isn't. Disinvestment campaigns are legal in the US, while boycott campaigns are illegal. Right now the article labels "disinvestment" as a type of "economic boycott" (see the heading used for the section of the divestment campaign) when it is no such thing. My recommendation is for a separate article dealing specifically with the divestment issue be created, I would suggest a title of Disinvestment from Israel. This would reduce the confusion/conflation that is reflected in the current state of this article. I also suggest this because there is a large unwieldy Israel section in the main disinvestment article that also needs some work. --Lucretius (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________ A remark: I do not see the problem with using any of the symbols above; Israeli flag, Palestinian flag, The BDS campaign logo. I think it’s a legitimate way of expressing once ideas or options. Shahar12000@yahoo.com Shahar .H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.203.74 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Balance"[edit]

CJ, I won't ask you to keep the lead balanced, but can I at least ask you to pretend to do it? Honestly, you think removing 100% of the criticism is "balanced?" If so, can I ask you to take a break from this article, or ask some neutral people if they agree with you? If not, would you mind going back and rewriting what I did? As for Tutu, I'd like to see a different source -- I could find no other refs for it. But I'm happy to have it in with a good source. IronDuke 15:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that stacking up the most sensationalistic quotes in the introduction is profoundly unbalanced, and I'd ask you to reword the section accordingly. CJCurrie (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
CJ: you’re a bright guy. I’m sure you know that there is no quantum iteration of any universe in which I’m going to submit my edits for your review. I’m doing actual work on this article – if you want to help, that’s great, I could use it. If you want to simply eliminate sourced content on the basis of no policy except WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I’d ask you to please stop. IronDuke 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Israel companies[edit]

When some activists talk about boycotting Israel, they often provide a list of pro-Israel companies that would presumably be covered under a boycott. What is surprising is that many of these companies have become household names, and that it would probably be difficult to successfully achieve a boycott without causing significant and long-standing damage to the global economy. There is a commentary article here from the National Post which gives a partial list of these companies. [3] ADM (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims of political divestment should be unambiguous[edit]

I removed the TIAA-CREF accusation. It is apparent (through some net research) that the company sold it's stock in Africa Israel in June and the pressure by anti-Israel groups was only sent to them and replied in September with a qualification that the fund still has billions invested in Israel. The Haaretz source, virtually paraphrasing this 'press release' from a boycott organization, is merely rehased two days afterwards. The Haaretz article, the boycott organization, and the TIAA-CREF do not explicitly state that selling shares in Africa Israel was part of a boycott or in response to pressure (that came after they sold the shares). And in hindsight an excellant economic move since the stock plunged recently. I think that this article should be very careful in not accusing companies/organizations of boycotts, or succumbing to pressure, unless the organization makes this unambiguously clear. --Shuki (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The TIAA-CREF teacher's fund even justified that the reason for selling was pure economic (my bold):

As of June 30, 2009, TIAA-CREF no longer owned shares in Africa-Israel Investments Ltd. While a small number of shares of the company were previously held in the CREF Stock Account, they were sold after they fell out of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Some news reports have failed to note that the sale occurred in June, as a routine part of the indexing investing process, in which the Account manager’s holdings track the index. The CREF Stock Account invests in a broadly diversified portfolio of domestic and foreign equity securities by using a combination of three strategies: active management, enhanced indexing and pure indexing.

--Shuki (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Shuki. --Dailycare (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change[edit]

Propose a simplification to "Boycotts of Israel" the current title does not properly encompass cultural, academic, athletic or other boycotts. RomaC (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, "Boycotts of Israel" encompasses all boycotts and is simpler. I'd venture a guess that many users wind up on this page after typing "Boycotts of Israel" in the search bar. --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides a name change, this article and Disinvestment from Israel seem to overlap and information is inserted in both. The cats are the same as well. Are separate articles justified? --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Would like to change the title now are there any objections? Also would like to hear more on Shuki's proposal. RomaC (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with the name change. Why hasn't anybody done it yet? Famousdog (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinian United Call For BDS[edit]

This page is missing any reference to the "Palestinian United Call for Boycott of Israel", which was issued in 2005 and signed by a large number of Palesitnian civil society organizations, unions, and NGOs. The call has stated that the goals are Israel's compliance with human rights law, specifically:"1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

This information comes from the homepage of the Boycott National Committee, the organizing body of the unified call. http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheitner (talkcontribs) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Montreal[edit]

This seems to be a list of 2nd rate nobodies who would not get to Israel anyway. I don't think it is notable enough. --Shuki (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 500 people on the list. I'm not as well versed in Montreal's art scene as you appear to be, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Economist article[edit]

"The Economist contends that the boycott is "flimsy" and ineffective, that "blaming Israel alone for the impasse in the occupied territories will continue to strike many outsiders as unfair," and points out that the Palestinian leadership does not support the boycott."

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804231

Perhaps we should get a different source—one that doesn't require a paid subscription. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy undue[edit]

No need to enumerate every little group or person that decides to boycott Israel. The article might as well be moved to a LIST considering the format it is in.

Either the article needs to be about boycotts of israel, or moved to a "List of boycotts of Israel.." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a major part of this article could be under a subheading "list of boycotts". --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Not good enough. I like list articles and I think could easily be moved to a List-type unless editors want to do some serious changes. The title of the article is plural, "Boycotts of Israel."
IMO this article could be seen as a fork of Academic boycotts of Israel, Disinvestment from Israel, and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Most if not all of the edits here could easily be moved to the mentioned articles. 4 Israeli boycott articles is totally unnecessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BDS Taking too much credit for actions which have no relation with the BDS campign[edit]

For example, the Deutsche Bank incident with Elbit systems - they never claimed that they have sold their shares because of anything related to politics, I read on the newspaper that they actually sold it because someone wanted to buy all of their shares, and BDS took credit for it.

Same thing with Devendra Banhart, he has never claimed CLEARLY that he has canceled his show due to politics.


Please be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.230.43 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the way we're presenting the information in the article follows the sources quite well, with attribution. --Dailycare (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

JCPA document: "Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK"[edit]

This 56-page document has a few mentions of boycotts against Israel. Why does it merit a paragraph (or any link) in the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

POV[edit]

The "Criticism" section is about twice as long as the "Support" section. This violates NPOV by giving undue weight to a fringe minority viewpoint. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The remedy would appear to be to include more material in the "Support" section. --Dailycare (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I’m disagreeing that with this NPOV conclusion, since the entire article could be viewed as a "Support" section. Not that adding to the "Support" section would be bad, but I don't see a NPOV conflict in the over all article. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
i agree with artest4echo - the entire article is 'support'. maybe just get rid of the 'support' category title, and put those three items in with 'other'? Soosim (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Valuable Addition[edit]

I would do it myself, but I don't have the time right now, (Work/Weather issues have made long contributions impossible right now), but I think it would be a valuable addition to this page to include notes on some of laws that counties have that prohibit participation in this boycotting. I know the US has these laws, (see), but it would be interesting to see what other countries have these type of laws.

For example, if my company (US Company wholly owned by a French Company) is required by law to report to the US Department of Commerce Department (Per Export Administration Regulations (EAR)) if a customer asks us to sign a boycott agreement against Israel to do business with them. Then we may have to refuse to do business with them at all, even if they don’t require that agreement in the end, or we could lose the ability to get export licenses (per port Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA)), which would effectively shut us down.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gil Scott-Heron[edit]

Gil Scott-Heron is referred to as a "rap artist" in this article; it might be more accurate to describe him as a jazz artist.

 Done Thank you for making this suggestion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of separate pages[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a mess on this topic. Boycotts of Israel and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ought really to be merged as they cover common ground. There should then be separate pages for the Academic and cultural boycott, Economic boycott and Divestment from Israel. The page on sport, currently called Arab–Israeli conflict in sports, should stay separate in my view. Nescio vos (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the first two pages you mention could be merged together. I'm not sure, though, that the divestments and artists couldn't be sub-chapters in the merged article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
But wouldn't the whole thing become too long then? Nescio vos (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Now I see your point. I think we can think later whether the resulting article is too long, it won't necessarily be too long and if it is, splitting it later on is easy. --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

using ei for facts[edit]

they are not RS for facts. they are only good for their own opinion or when someone writes on their blog, then for that person's opinion. Soosim (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems clearcut to me. --Jethro B 06:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
See the RSN archives (#20). EI is used by high-quality RS such as the New York Times and others, which is indicative they are RS. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
So to be clear, if CAMERA was used by a high quality source, it could also be used? Ankh.Morpork 19:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Cheese. And I'm thinking of another organization that is used by the New York Times. I can't think of it right now, wait, MEMRI! (see here for one example). Now a look at the RSN noticeboards shows this as the most comprehensive and longest discussion on it, with a result that it's unreliable. --Jethro B 20:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
let's just make a list, put it somewhere, and be done with it! ngo monitor, jcpa, camera, elec intifada, fmep, wrmea, etc are all think-tanks, glorified blogs, academic research institutes, etc. - they are not cnn, foxnews, the guardian, thejc, etc. Soosim (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If CAMERA was used by as many RS as EI and there were no specific reasons to consider it unreliable, I think it would do well in RSN just like EI did. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait, you think that this archive 20, with just 2 responses, 1 person saying it's a marginal case and perhaps ok in taht instance and another editor named PalestineRemembered responding, is better and more credible than the archive I brought up, a lengthy discussion with many editor's viewpoints in it? Interesting... Then you say that the archive doesn't count, because somehow it's just editors turning up to say no, but an archive where an editor named PalestineRemembered turns up to say yes should count? Even more interesting... Don't just simply revert 1 hour after 1RR expires and game the system, bring it up here first. --Jethro B 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The substance of an argument is more important than who is making it. If an editor, whatever his or her name might be, says that the Financial Times and ITV have endorsed the Electronic Intifada, it makes for a persuasive argument (see WP:CONSENSUS). This is in the archive and it does count, and I specifically referred to the archive. To the contrary, in archive 57 Gilisa was specifically told that she needs to substantiate her allegations in order for her arguments to "carry any weight", which she failed to do. Jaakobou says EI is unreliable without giving any reasons, which again isn't very persuasive. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly true, but there was only one editor with an obvious POV making an argument that EI should be considered reliable. There was no further discussion, nothing. It's a terrible archive to pick as the one to follow, compared with another one that is much longer, has more than 1 editor's views, and is much more comphrensive. That's cherrypicking an archive that supports your position, as opposed to an archive that had a much longer discussion with more editors. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here... --Jethro B 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The most elaborate archived discussion on this source was quite clear that this was not an RS. This was discussed and a consensus was formed, your continued disregard of this is disruptive editing. Ankh.Morpork 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
If you insist, I can open a new discussion on RSN. Ankh, you can self-revert you latest revert at this point. --Dailycare (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sooism Undoes Edits[edit]

1) First off, league is singular. ADL is a singular organization. The verb is singular: has.

2) Criticisms and objections is redundant, plus this also lists failed boycotts, so let's call the section just that.

3) Just like we say who Noam Chomsky is, i.e. linguist, I think it's important we describe who the ADL is.

4) BDSmovement.com is RS for saying what the BDS movement is.

5) For Chomsky, I changed the source to The Australian.

6) For the section labeled, other: a) the first bit has nothing to do with BDS, it's not part of the BDS movement to do stuff like that and nowhere in the article does it mention that it is BDS, it should not be included b) the second bit is out of place and should not just be thrown into a section labelled other. Charles Xavier 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talkcontribs)

Leade POV?[edit]

Seems there is a heavy POV in the lead; "Such campaigns are employed by those who challenge the legitimacy of Israel's policies or actions towards the Palestinians". Well, challenge? Legitimacy? Given by whom? It would be more neutral to say that they simply doesn't believes that Israel is a legitimate state --aad_Dira (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Agree, they want to destroy Israel just like you. But it's difficult to find a source, since most of them aren't willing to admit it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what is the link between my userpage and Boycotts of Israel (where did I say that I want to destroy Israel?). Anyway, I don't think this article is the appropriate place for your theories about those who wants to destroy Israel, so it is better to make it the way I suggested --aad_Dira (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC).
Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well... I agree with you in one thing: For the people who support boycotts against Israel (like you), this country is illegitimate, without mattering its borders. If you find a source to sustain it, I'll help you to include it here.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you are misunderstanding the issue; I didn't ask to include anything. I simply asked to rewrite the phrase in a more neutral way, and note that it is already unsourced --aad_Dira (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC).
interesting discussion: since the only sourced item in the article about a reason is "from providing support to Israel and adding to Israel's economic and military strength" - and then the stuff from the bds movement (which is really a side issue here, since they have their own page). so maybe we rewrite the lede to just talk about no support for Israel and not to add to Israel's economy or military strength. ok? Soosim (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the lead so that it is more neutral regarding this question. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Greenberg, if you're going to accuse other users of wanting to "destroy Israel" simply because their pages are in Arabic and they show signs of Pan-Arabism (this borders on bigotry and racism on your part), then you best come up with substantial evidence. Such accusations are serious matters. Being anti-Zionist or pro-BDS does not make one want to "Destroy" Israel anymore than the anti-apartheid campaigners wanted to destroy South Africa. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Artistic Boycotts - Norway[edit]

The entry for Norway states 100 Artists, the citation indicates that the 100 names listed are not specifically artists, a fair number are academics (professors etc) so this entry is somewhat misleading, giving the impression that 100 artists have boycotted. 2.220.6.246 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"United States government response" needs citations[edit]

A new section has been inserted into the article without corresponding citations. I updated the templates in the article, but this needs to be addressed as soon as possible.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting Period Between News and Entry[edit]

What is the recommended time to wait after news breaks before adding something to this page? BenjaminHold (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you like you can wait a few days to see how most sources will cover something, on the other hand I'm not aware of any specifically recommended wait time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"and unincorporated associations resident in the United States"[edit]

There is not the slightest evidence in ref 165 (Arab League Boycott of Israel, Martin A. Weiss Specialist in International Trade and Finance, December 19, 2013), which supposedly is the source for the chapter, that associations are subject to these laws. In fact the laws seem to be mainly about trade

This is the only context where the word association surfaces:

In 2004,according to the Manufacturers Association of Israel (IMA), Israeli exports to Arab countries and entities (mainly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority) totaled $192 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeaNder (talkcontribs) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

delete pictures[edit]

Most pictures are just random from different protests against Israel and not directly related to boycotts. I don't want to delete without discussion. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Iceland boycott?[edit]

Anyone fancy tackling this? Seems important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.24.27 (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Boycotts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boycotts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on BDS page[edit]

A discussion on length and splitting up articles into new sections is currently going on at the BDS page. It might be of interest to editors here. Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Too long - TrickyH (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war[edit]

Regarding the recent edit war about the need to remove POV pushing material that was added by an editor who shouldn't have edit this page because of active restrictions.

Instead of reverting to a version from May and undoing all edits to this page since, somebody could selectively go over the article and remove anything that needs to be removed. I did a bit of that in my recent edits, but much more needs to be done. would also propose to do this selectively, in other words, keep and re-write things that seem useful but are worded too POV. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor and Epson Salts:, Debresser asked you a question. In fact, I said the same thing in my edit summary yesterday. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I interpreted that edit summary as "I like what annony put there" since the most significant changes were made by him/her. If you genuinely meant "we should get rid of annony but keep debresser" I apologize for the unwarranted sass.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted a POV-push made yesterday, to a version made September 2nd. Please review the edit history and avoid making false accusations. Epson Salts (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for what you did. You jumped, feet first, into an edit war -- and you reverted the article back to its March 10 version. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean the edit war you were already heavily into? The one where you were selectively reverting editors whose POV you didn't like on account of ARBPIA3, while retaining edits you do like , made by similarly restricted editors? Do you think there's a single person here who does not see your hideous POV pushing and hypocrisy? I reverted back exactly one version - check the edit history. Epson Salts (talk)
That's an interesting point. Why did you not revert Reed1967 per ARBPIA3, Malik? He removed a bunch of sourced material that was in the article for a long time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wikitiring but this is too good to miss. The POV pusher made a lot of subtle changes like changing "damage" jewish businesses to "affect" jewish businesses. Affect how? Also changing israel's founding to israel's "declaration", to avoid the implication that they had declared boycott before Israel even existed. In my view those little changes are the most insidious, but the big ones are funnier. Among other things our POV pusher removed are "GCC states recognized that total elimination of the boycott is a necessary step for peace and economic development in the region". Lol. Delete the Arabs saying boycotts are bad! Boycotts are good and the Arabs need white lefties to tell them what's good for them! Of course he also deleted that the boycotts damaged Arab economies, so I guess the Arabs had no reason to worry in the first place. What else. He deleted a link saying boycotts in britain have been a rallying point for antisemitism because "it could be considered antisemitic". Who knew he was so concerned about antisemitism! Then he deleted all the comments against BDS including madonna, paul mccartney, j k rowling, finklestein... Totally good faith editing right there. Of course he's only deleting reliably sourced info "due to a perceived sense of moral obligation to not be directly involved in the funding of a state that forcibly occupies land by systematic demolition of residencies followed by forced evictions." I think I've made my point.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boycotts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boycotts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boycotts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)