BDS is about ethnic demonization, not ending the occupation

An associated PCACB statement adds that any conflict resolution must include the right of the 1948 Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

In fact, the December 1948 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 was clearly conditional, and formally linked to acceptance of the earlier UN partition resolution creating both Jewish and Arab states in Palestine, and a negotiated peace. The resolution did not provide for any universal "right of return" of all 1948 refugees, but rather applied only to those refugees who were willing to live in peace with Israel.

In practice, both the Palestinian leaders and the Arab governments initially rejected the resolution precisely because it implied recognition of Israel's legitimacy. Today it is universally acknowledged that any large-scale return of 1948 Palestinian refugees to Israel would be likely to bring civil war and enormous bloodshed rather than Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. and is totally incompatible with a two-state solution.

A/Professor Jake Lynch in his earlier cited contribution asks with apparent frustration what alternative measures would opponents of a BDS propose to promote a two-state solution? But the answer to this question is obvious. Both sides of the conflict have to make major concessions to their dominant narrative to facilitate two states. The large number of Israeli and Jewish doves would be the first to recommend that the current Israeli government change course, and abandon any proposals to implement a Greater Israel strategy involving permanent occupation of the West Bank. A good first step at the very least would be to evacuate all settlers and all settlements east of the security barrier with a long-term view to swapping the larger settlement blocs in exchange for land inside Green Line Israel.

And similarly Palestinian peace advocates know that they will have to reject violence per se whether initiated by Hamas or Fatah, and accept partial rather than absolute justice which means foregoing any individual or collective claims by refugees to land or homes inside Green Line Israel.

A topical example of a real peace initiative based precisely on these principles of mutual compromise and concessions has been presented just this week by an Israeli non-government coalition headed by the son of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yuval Rabin. The Israeli Peace Initiative noticeably avoids any of the blaming and demonising language used by the Palestinian advocates of a BDS, and instead proposes a win-win two-state solution.

As for positive local examples of promoting peace and dialogue in Israel/Palestine, Professor Lynch only has to look in his own backyard. Instead of joining the Marrickville Council in a divisive campaign of hate and vilification against Israelis, the Leichhardt Council brought together representatives of local Jews and Arabs/Palestinians with a commitment to "peace and justice in the Middle East". They chose to support a joint project between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank rather than demonising one group or the other.