Jason makes some good points and here's how I would respond, not to the debate about who's to blame for what in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which of itself can't really be properly assessed outside of the context of Israel's conflict with neighbouring countries like Syria, Iran and other Muslim countries that have failed to recognize its right to exist.

But to the point of IAW and the entire BDS campaign, it has a very serious perception problem.

 Here in the virtual world of Rabble.ca and in like minded areas which, make no mistake, comprise a minority of popular opinion in the continent, there is a general agreement that its goal is to improve the lives of Palestinians.

But unless you are only associating with like-minded people, it's hard not to realize that the debate in the greater sphere has not been about Israel and the Palestinians as much as whether the IAW  and the use of "apartheid" in referrence to Israel is bigoted and of itself anti-Semitic. Never mind that there are Jews involved with it, the Jews involved with IAW have been characterized as either "self-hating Jews" or radical Marxist ideologues, which in the popular perception has effectively marginalized them.

I am not at all suggesting that anyone should allow any tactics to intimidate them out of free speech.

What I am saying is that as a tactic, IAW and BDS has become counter-productive because rather than being perceived as an effort for human rights, it's being perceived as bigotry, and it now has to expend more energy explaining that it isn't a gathering of bigots then it does to promote Palestinian rights. In fact, if I were a trying to digress from the issue of peace, I don't think I could have done better then to have invented IAW and BDS as a digression from the real issues.

I've seen a number of comments in the last few days on Rabble attacking Cheri Di Novo. Since when did Cheri di Novo become an enemy of the social justice movement? More evidence that IAW and BDS is self-destructive.

The wider debate about IAW and BDS hasn't become whether Israel is or isn't apartheid, it hasn't been, how do we improve the rights of Palestinians and work towards their having an independent democratic state. It's become, by singling out Israel with one-sided blame and calls for boycotts, when other countries that violate human rights to a greater extent than Israel don't face this treatment, isn't the IAW movement just a bunch of anti-Israel, and possibly anti-Jewish bigots?

And to contradict that, you can refute it in a whole bunch of ways, but then the matter gets sidetracked away from the Palestinian rights issue to the issue of having to explain how you aren't bigoted. And sure, you can bring up the terrible things that Israel has done to the Palestinians to justify IAW and the supporters of Israel can bring up the terrible things the Palestinians have done to justify their treatment of the Palestinians, but the issue of IAW then just comes back to the single-minded bias against Israel.

I know Naomi Klien and others have said you use it against Israel because it can be an effective tactic, but I would suggest it has become a tactic that is backfiring. If that is the case, it doesn't make sense continuing to use a tactic that is counter-productive.