Park Slope Food Coop votes to boycott Israeli goods amid deepening divisions in NYC ⁠52%

By Colin Mixson⁠63%

5/26/2026, 7:44:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.6% saturation with 197 hits. Analysis detected 1,118 faulty-reasoning hits from 553 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,714 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

Members at a Brooklyn food cooperative voted in favor of a controversial proposal to boycott Israeli goods during an online meeting Tuesday night amid deepening divisions across NYC over Israel and Palestine. 
More than 8,000 members of the Park Slope Food Coop — roughly half of the store’s 17,000 shoppers — registered for the hotly anticipated vote that was conducted over Zoom during the grocery store’s May monthly meeting, according to a longtime member. 
“This is unprecedented,” said Barbara Mazor, who added that the food coop’s meetings typically cap out at a few hundred members. 
A total of 4,780 were cast in favor of the ban, with 1,796 dissenting. 
Prior to voting on the boycott, members voted 61% in favor of eliminating a requirement that all boycott votes require a supermajority of 75%. 
The boycott vote itself passed with a 72% majority. 
Tuesday’s vote followed weeks of increased tension at the grocery store, with members on both sides of the issue campaigning outside the market’s Union Street entrance and in some cases coming to blows over the proposed ban, according to an email sent by the food coop’s leadership to members on Saturday. 
The dispute in brownstone Brooklyn comes against a deepening divide across NYC over the Oct. 7 terror attacks by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza that followed. 
Following the grocery store’s April meeting, the market hired additional security personnel and instituted new entry protocols in response to threatening letters and mail containing “suspicious substances,” the email read. 
With the ban approved, the store is now expected to take roughly a dozen Israeli-made products currently there off its shelves, including Ecolove bath products, Equal Exchange olive oil, Osem corn puffs and Soom tahini. 
Supporters of the ban styled the boycott as a small gesture of opposition to Israel’s policies in the Gaza and Iran wars and discrimination against the Palestinians. 
“It’s about the fact that we’re complicit in what’s happening over there and it needs to stop immediately,” said John Caramichael, 27. 
“This is what we can do.” 
Opponents countered that the proposed boycott is a divisive waste of time. 
Some also consider it antisemitic to blanketly boycott Israeli products. 
“It is just an excuse to show your power,” said Andre Schklowsky, 84, who joined the coop in 1974. 
“It’s not gonna affect much of what I actually buy. 
It is just an excuse to divide people.” 
The Park Slope Food Coop has a history of engaging in politically motivated boycotts that dates back to 1973 — the year the grocery store was founded — when members voted against stocking their shelves with goods produced in apartheid-era South Africa. 
Members have since voted in favor of least seven additional boycotts, most recently targeting Citibank in 2018 over the Dakota Access Pipeline. 
Efforts by food coop members to boycott Israeli products, however, have proven more controversial. 
The last time the grocery store put the issue to a vote was in a 2012 referendum, when members voted 1,005 to 653 against the boycott, according to a Brooklyn Paper report. 
In 2016, four coop members were suspended more than a year after they interrupted a presentation by pro-Boycott shoppers about SodaStream, an Israeli product then sold at the store. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%Colin Mixson: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Colin Mixson: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic17.2%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.8%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Colin Mixson: 8.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 7.6%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.6%Colin Mixson: 12.9%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias35.6%This article: 3.4%Colin Mixson: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 4.0%Colin Mixson: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 3.4%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.4%This article: 4.9%Colin Mixson: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.7%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias15.7%This article: 7.6%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Colin Mixson: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem4.9%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 4.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.2%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Colin Mixson: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.6%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 4.0%Colin Mixson: 10.3%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 4.0%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 5.2%Colin Mixson: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 1.8%Colin Mixson: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Colin Mixson: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.1%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading1.1%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Colin Mixson: 3.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 8.9%Colin Mixson: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.9%This article: 8.3%Colin Mixson: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 5.1%Colin Mixson: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

553 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers16%attributed speech467writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageBarbara Mazor • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Caramichael • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Caramichael • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Schklowsky • 19 words • 100.0% coverageAndre Schklowsky • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Schklowsky • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Barbara Mazor

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words24% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Barbara Mazor: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Barbara Mazor: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Barbara Mazor: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.