The BDS movement
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign
A Palestinian-led boycott campaign — protest, or singling out the Jewish state?
What happened
A Palestinian-led campaign to pressure Israel through economic and cultural boycotts. The long-running dispute: is boycotting the world’s one Jewish state inherently antisemitic, or legitimate nonviolent protest?
Under each definition
Arguably example 8 (double standards), but IHRA also protects criticism “similar to that leveled against any other country,” and a leading legal opinion holds BDS isn’t antisemitic under IHRA.
Guideline 14 lists BDS as “not, on the face of it, antisemitic.”
Nexus treats boycotts — and even harsh criticism — as not antisemitic in themselves.
Hinges on whether singling out Israel is a “double standard” or legitimate targeted protest.
Who called it antisemitic
Many governments and Jewish organizations argue BDS singles out Israel (an IHRA “double standard”) and aims to delegitimize it.
The defense
The Jerusalem Declaration explicitly lists BDS as “not, on the face of it, antisemitic”; supporters compare it to anti-apartheid boycotts and note many Jews back it.
Outcome
Numerous US states passed anti-BDS laws (some struck down on free-speech grounds); the movement remains legal and active, and fiercely debated.
In their words
[BDS] opposes the very existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state in its entirety and in any kind of borders.
BDS targets Israel’s regime of oppression. It does not target an identity as such.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The 3D test applies only to Israel-related cases, so it reads “N/A” elsewhere. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.