Well, except for the fact that the BDS leadership accepts the rights of a non-heterogenous group of individuals (Palestinians) without a unique culture, language, religion, ancestry or history that is separate from their nearby Arab brethren to “qualify” as a distinct nation-state that must be protected, while denying that same status to a group that does have a distinct culture, language, religion, ancestry and history (Jews). That’s certainly “principled”, but it’s a principle that goes against accepted norms of international law, and seems strangely exclusionary to Jews. Similarly, their principles of non-violence don’t seem to extend to boycotting, divesting or sanctioning the bus bombers and missile launchers of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or their numerous state supporters, leading one to believe that their “principles” are lacking a certain, ahem, integrity.

Thanks for your comment! I hear what you’re saying. I was looking for a single article that rounded up anti-Semitic statements by BDS activists, since I can’t link to individual statements from one phrase in the texts. I wanted to use a piece that acknowledged that while BDS’s aims are often shared by liberals of all stripes, BDS activists in actual practice have made statements and behaved in ways that can legitimately be deemed anti-Semitic. There are other organizations that believe in a two-state solution and in Israel’s need to respect human rights — such as the New Israel Fund and Peace Now — that haven’t also displayed frequent anti-Semitism. (If you have another link you’d like me to use that collects anti-Semitic statements by BDSers, I’m open to using it!)

On the other hand, as apologies go, paragraphs 2 and 3 are pretty good, aren’t they? Saying flat out, “we apologize,” rather than the usual ambivalent stuff; trying to undo the harm they’ve done to the victim by renewing the invitation; and saying, again flat out, “we made a mistake,” rather than something like “we’re sorry if anyone was offended.”

The problem, as you point out very, very well, is in their original actions—but that’s what makes an apology necessary to begin with—and, especially, in the way that their original actions and their inconsistency in (not) dealing with the Canadian homophobe, make you suspect the apology isn’t sincere.