BDS is an attempt to rein in Israel's genocide against the Palestinians.

Genocide is a strong term, please back with evidence if you wish to convince me or similar readers (i.e. people with no direct vested interest but who wish to form an impartial view).

Yes Phillip, BDS really stands for:

Belligerent
Demonization and
Sophistry

Phil,

In regards to the Palestinian refugee issue, here is UN General Assembly Resolution 194:

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument

Point no. 11 in the Resolution is "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

"Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;"

So it seems to be that as long as they did not attack the people who would live near them, they should be allowed to return home.

Also, where is your evidence that the return of Palestinian refugees would lead to civil war?

In regards to what caused the refugee exodus in the first place, it is clear that the Zionist terrorist groups such as Irgun Tsvai Leumi, the Stern Gang and Haganah had a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing, and as part of it their members committed massacres and rapes.

In regards to the two-state versus one-state solution, I support the one-state solution. Firstly, because of the situation of Palestinian refugees. Secondly, because of the systematic discrimination against Gentiles in Israel. Approximately twenty per cent of Israel's population within the 1967 Green Line are Palestinian Arab Israelis, and they face a multitude of laws that discriminate against them simply on the grounds that they are not Jews. I fear that the two-state solution will leave the situations of Palestinian refugees and non-Jewish Israelis unaddressed, when they are both serious civil rights issues.

Phillip sounds like a fairly reasonable person. However, he claims that BDS is purely to demonise Jews rather than an attempt to pressure Israel into ending the conflict.
This is clearly not the case. While I'm sure that you can point to some racist fanatics out there, the vast majority of people simply wish to see a just end to this conflict. As someone who has been observing this conflict for a number of years it has become very clear to me that the Israeli's have no intention of reaching a just settlement. They are simply stringing things out, all the while transferring more and more of their population to the Palestinian territories, stealing the prime land and water resources.
Your comment that "Palestinian peace advocates know that they will have to reject violence per se whether initiated by Hamas or Fatah" shows your bias on this issue. There has been very little violence toward Israelis over the past ten or so years, despite an ongoing military occupation and the Gaza siege which would justify a certain amount of violent resistance. In contrast, the Israelis frequently use devastating violence against the Palestinians. Do you accept that the Israeli will have to "reject violence" too? Or is it a case of one rule for Israelis and one for Palestinians?
I think that without strong international pressure, the Israeli will not allow a two state solution. Seeing as our government and that of the US are unwilling to apply this pressure, then a BDS campaign is probably the best option.

The writer stated “Associate Professor Jake Lynch,” saying “that a BDS would be more successful than the various failed international peace initiatives in promoting a viable two-state solution”.

A simple statement and which has now been borne out by events. Note the environment for the last US-inspired Israeli ‘peace’ charade by having the US as a “friendly broker” being just pure farce, middle east theatre, laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

There we saw Mubarak, US stooge, corrupt dictator, US rendition provider, hand in hand with the evil Netanyahu and as a ‘friendly broker’, Hilary Clinton, ex-US Senator for New York. Can anyone imagine a more devious collection of individuals all facing off Mahmoud Abbas for Palestine, so naive as to think that there was any intention to negotiate anything at any time. And so it has always been and will always be as the name of the game is the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the stealing of all the land, well under way with a US veto.

The only Israeli objective since day one, now known by the whole world

Now, one would expect that this would be seen by most fair-minded Australians, with the exception of the compromised Gillard to be somewhat unfair, so when the BDS is then amplified by any discussion or action, successful or otherwise, it adds a level of understanding to many thousands of Australians, who through the Jewish ownership of the movie industry may have thought that Jews were funny little fellows who talked strangely but were loveable and quaint.

No. Some Jews perhaps, but a Zionist, never.

That’s the real value of such BDS actions and in other parts of the globe, seen as necessary to bring a disgraceful regime to task for murder, mayhem, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.on a scale that makes Hitler and Stalin seem like bumbling amateurs.

This is an undisputed fact everywhere but in the Murdoch press.

So the BDS was most successful in the role it was able to play in the education of the sleepy Australian public to the evils of Zionism, everywhere.