I've just read that David Collier article linked above, and am sharing it again as it very much worth your while:
https://david-collier.com/inside-occupied-territory-at-the-green-party-conference/
He provides evidence of people in favour of the motion also being in favour of violence and of the Iranian regime.
He's also clear about the use of token Jews, who stand either outside or on the outskirts of their community, as a fig-leaf for antisemitism.
I also read his 'about' page, where he says, of his journey to becoming an investigative journalist:
'but I started to double-check everything – even the points being made by those I agree with.'
Oooh David... I've done the same. Follow where the evidence, rather than ideology, takes you. Read your own side critically, as well as drilling into the opposition. Check quotes to source. Make sure that academic paper really says what the person promulgating its results claims it says. If it says it in the conclusions, check that the text supports those conclusions wholeheartedly (don't expect the peer reviewers to do it, as some of them are useless). If you're in the archive anyway, check that file... You'd be appalled at what bullshit makes its way into print.
It's a sure-fire way to make yourself unpopular, especially if you describe your findings to the ideologically motivated.