So Fiona Byrne, the mayor of Marrickville Council, when justifying why her council decided to boycott Israel, said:
Last week at least 165 Israeli professors signed a petition declaring a boycott on activities at the Ariel University Centre in the occupied West Bank declaring Ariel an “illegal settlement” which has the intention of preventing the Palestinian people from establishing an independent state.
Remember this little nugget of wisdom from this post:
The movement is not one that is happy to negotiate and find halfway ground – its rhetoric is all-or-nothing. When Israelis partially support anything in the BDS ideology, the BDS leaders tend to use it to justify themselves by saying “I’m agreeing with this Israeli, only extending it a little further” rather than moderating their views.
See? These “we support BDS, but only to a certain extent” initiatives are only ever counter-productive. They are all-or-nothing, the only way to deal with them should be to decry the whole movement.
Also, note that she affirms that they are not a one-state solution movement, but very carefully avoids saying what they do actually believe on the subject:
A handful of people have assumed that Marrickville Council’s support of BDS implies that we support a one-state solution to the conflict. This is not at all the case. The BDS is not an anti-Israel resolution. It is about identifying institutions that directly support the occupation of Palestine, and choosing not to do business with them.
And as for it not being an anti-Israel resolution, she goes on to say:
Many Australians remember how international boycotts and sanctions of South African goods in the 1980s helped to bring an end to apartheid. It is no accident that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is today one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli policies in Palestine and one of the principal advocates of the BDS movement.
Without going into too much detail, the Apartheid comparison is completely inapplicable and makes it very clear that this IS an anti-Israel resolution and they ARE advocates of a one-state solution. I will explain this later when I’m not sitting half-asleep in an airport lounge.