The debate over the Anti-Boycott Law on this blogsite although admittedly hysterical at times has had nothing to do with anti-Semitism that is until JA had to bring it up.

The debate has always been about whether or not it is right to impinge on and/or just to penalise someone exercising his right to free speech where he is well aware that anyone acting on that expression is going to cause a third party economic loss or that expression impinges on Israel's cultural or academic ties.
One does not have to be an anti-Semite to call for a boycott and no one is denying that many people who oppose the State of Israel oppose its policies and do it for political not anti-Semitic reasons. A case in point is Neve Gordon. I happen to think he was wrong in calling for boycotts. Israel is not Apartheid South Africa - everyone has a vote here and is free to exercise that vote. I have no doubt he genuinely holds his views but not having been able to convince a majority of the electorate to accept those views and so democratically elect in MKs who would carry out those policies it was wrong of him to call on foreign agencies to force Israel by boycott to do what Left-wing political parties were unable to achieve at the ballot box and why I believe his call must come at a price.

The debate is therefore whether Israel as a democracy at war, both in military and economic terms, should or should not be entitled to say to a boycotter we do not deny you your right to call for a boycott but be aware given what we face your right to call for the boycott of Israel or Israelis may come at a price.
But of course JA wants to muddy the waters and reduce every argument in favour of the law to one held by raving loonies crying anti-Semitism. So JA if you have something meaningful to add to the debate please do so however please do not poison it.