Well I never said that giving a group the right to self determine what defines abuse against that same group would be clean or easy.
Joking aside, BDS is a great example of why things get grey. I described BDS in a very sterile way in my original post. Someone thinks the Israeli government is bad, they want to change it, BDS creates pressure through the citizenry to demand change and hey presto, change is achieved through the election of a new government.
But there are plenty of people in the Jewish community who view BDS as a way to single out Jews because Israel is an explicitly Jewish nation-State. There are some explicitly antisemitic elements within the BDS movement or rather, there are people who are explicit antisemites who believe in BDS as a means to an end.
Most of the time I hear people in the Community say BDS is antisemitic because it creates a standard for Israel that doesn’t exist for any other country and they believe the Israeli government is singled out because the government represents a country that is in theory for Jewish people. People also feel that such a standard is not applied to majority Muslim countries, for example.
But who is using it incorrectly? If we agree that the “in group” has the sole authority to define what abuse means than they can’t use the term incorrectly. What we end up with is a bell curve of what the Jewish community defines as acceptable and what they don’t.
And not that it was your intention but suggesting that the term gets diluted because people use it is exactly why a lot of Jews don’t say anything for fear of being labeled thin-skinned or pushy. We see it a lot in the US when white people complain about people of color bringing up slavery, Jim Crow, redlining or institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system. “Oh here they go again, bringing all this up.” It’s just an easy way to shut down the conversation down.