I once marginally opposed the boycott of South African universities on the ground that it disrupted contact with academics with whom we ought to close ranks. Tutu’s letter and the South African BDS explanation hyperlinked in by Clara O’Loughlin blew those hesitations away both for back then and for now. The role of the Israeli universities as yapping curs running at the heels of the Israeli state is shown starkly in Professor Shlomo Sand’s accounts of the campaigning role of the university history departments on behalf of the Zionist state in the narrative of his book on the invention of the Jewish people. It is unfortunate that BDS sentences to exclusion decent academics engaged in respectable research areas such as chemistry, and it can be hoped that they will understand the need.

In other threads the Israeli spokesman David Singer likes to cite legal documents adopted by foreign colonialists and UN as validating Israel’s existence, but today I checked them and it turns out the Zionists are lying about them. They do no such thing. See the sorry details at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15351 .

As for the academic BDS, it is not antisemitic or even anti-Israeli except in that it seeks changes in Israel’s behaviour. Hopefully in the future boycotts will lead to dismantlement of the racist state itself.

I have changed my mind and agree with those who support the boycott.

I happen to agree that legal action is not the appropriate way to combat BDS. But Ms O'loughlin is naive about the ultimate aims of BDS. The BDS aim of a "right of return" to the territory of Israel, not only by the small number of Palestinian refugees from 1948 who are still living but also their millions of descendants ad infinitum into the future, is indeed aimed at 'the destruction of Israel' by means other than conventional warfare. Ms O'Loughlin should do the research and familiarise herself with the statement s of BDS founders like Omar Barghouti.

Speaking at Carleton University in Ottawa in 2010, while he was a PhD student at Tel Aviv University, Barghouti had this to say in his “personal capacity”.
“I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution… If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution. You would have a Palestine next to a Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel.” See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZLk6Ei9-U.

In another interview at the same link, Barghouti stated: “If the occupation ends, would that end our call for BDS? No it wouldn’t.”

He wrote an even more self-damning piece in Electronic Intifada on 31 May 2009:

"...people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it ¬ a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state." Here’s the link:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/boycotts-work-interview-omar-barghouti/826

Dear BSDetector,

You wrote: "In another interview at the same link, Barghouti stated: “If the occupation ends, would that end our call for BDS? No it wouldn’t.”"

It would not end Barghouti's call for BDS, but it would end that of other people who are supporting it because they want an end to the occupation and not an end to Israel. I have changed my mind about the motivation for BDS as antisemitic because I realise that people support it for different motives. Some are antisemitic, but many others are not.

Some support it only because they want an end to the occupation. If and when the occupation is ended they will probably stop supporting it. Others will continue, but they will be less effective. They may even find former allies opposing them.

Dear David f
I accept that the subjective motivations of BDS supporters vary, as you say. My point was about the objective effect of the published goals of the international BDS movement, in particular the so-called "right of return" of "refugees" including the descendants of refugees ad infinitum into the future. The destruction of Israel as the State of the Jewish people is inherent in this goal, whether or not supporters of the BDS movement realise this or support it. Many BDS supporters are well intentioned people who are unaware of the real history and are being used. For the full history of BDS see:
http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bds_campaign.pdf

Dear BSDetector,

The BDS movement has horrible antecedents. It arose out of a racist, Jew-hating conference.

However, in evaluating a concept we have to consider how it has developed and what it is now rather than its origins. Movements change. Even words change in meaning. At one time, the word, girl, meant a child of either sex.

In its origins the Zionist movement was most worthy. Jews suffered from civil disabilities and persecution. The vision of Herzl and other founders of Zionism was to set up a place where a Jew could live a full and free life without being forbidden to engage in any occupation, forbidden to serve in any political office or in any way to be unfairly limited in their pursuits.

Although some still hold that vision, to others it has become a tool to justify the subjection of other people.

It is generally the case with self-determination or ethnic nationalism. A group with a common ethnicity or religion seeks a territory to express their aspirations as a people. If they succeed those within the boundaries of the new political unit who do not belong to the dominant group become second-class citizens.

I used to think that a Jewish democratic state was possible. I no longer think that is any more possible than the alliance of any religion, ideology or ethnicity with the state in forming a democratic polity. That also goes for a Palestinian state which excludes Jews.

I see no reasonable substitute for a state which makes no distinction among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, sex, gender identification and any other matter which should not be related to citizenship. I do not think the BDS movement will achieve that purpose nor do I think a ‘two state solution’ will achieve that purpose.

However, that is what I favour, and I think one must evaluate the BDS movement in terms of what its present members want rather than by the seamy origins of the movement.