Increasingly, progressives see the situation less as a national conflict and more as a human rights struggle. BDS offers an analysis of the problem and a strategy for change. Now that the old, peace-process paradigm has collapsed, progressive Americans see BDS as the only plausible path to ending the occupation.

Even Jews who disagree – both right-wingers who think there is no occupation and liberal two-staters – need to understand this point. BDS is compelling because it offers a solution. Many Jewish institutions support a two-state solution, but fail to present a clear strategy for achieving one. They do not exert pressure on the Israeli government, and they talk constantly about Palestinian intransigence. Regardless of what one thinks of this analysis on the moral level, on a practical level it means they expect the current situation to continue indefinitely. By contrast, BDS activists point to apartheid South Africa, which citizen activists gradually turned into a pariah state, bringing about the collapse of an immoral regime.

That is why typical anti-BDS strategies will fail. You cannot convince progressives that Palestinians are responsible for their own suffering. That looks like victim-blaming, a standard conservative tactic in domestic debates about, say, police violence and rape culture. And when the Israel advocacy group StandWithUs claims that BDS’s “true goal is the elimination of Israel and the end of Jewish self-determination,” progressives compare Israel’s strength to the Palestinians' weakness and make this claim sound crazy.

Accusing BDS proponents of anti-Semitism backfires. No doubt, there are anti-Semites in the BDS movement. But I have good friends – including Jews – who support BDS and who also care about the Jewish people. When the Jewish community invokes anti-Semitism in attempts to delegitimize BDS, it just forfeits its own credibility.

In fact, “Israel advocacy” that lacks nuance feeds anti-Israel radicalism. By fiercely attacking all critics of the occupation – even two-state Zionists – the Jewish community pushes critics of right-wing Israeli politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett into the arms of BDS. The Princeton Hillel angered its own students when it campaigned to defeat a non-BDS, occupation-focused boycott. I wrote an article against BDS, and commenters called me a “kapo” for mentioning the occupation. J Street doesn’t support any boycotts or divestments, yet right-wing Jewish critics made a movie to demonize it for supposedly threatening America’s relationship with Israel.

Progressives notice. Why take a nuanced, moderate stance, if you will still be smeared and attacked? Balancing Zionism and progressivism is hard enough without Jewish institutions declaring war on liberal Zionists. After years of right-wing gatekeeping within the Jewish community, we should not be surprised that progressives think the choice is BDS or Bibi.

If Jews want to avoid future BDS victories, we have to offer an alternative plan for ending the occupation. We should do so on our own, Zionist terms, insisting on a two-state solution and a secure Israel. As an American Jew, I favor selective divestments aimed at the West Bank, investing in progressive elements in Israeli society, and political lobbying in Washington D.C. – but I am open to better ideas.

Alternatively, you can write off progressive America, claim we are a bunch of anti-Semites who know nothing about the conflict, and demonize anyone who talks about the occupation. You can smear J Street and the New Israel Fund, and you can go to war with Jon Stewart, The New York Times, and the Presbyterians. Just don’t be surprised when the next union votes for BDS.

Raphael Magarik is a graduate student in English and Jewish Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.634297

But unfortunatly for Haaretz it means nobody will now have to pay to read it.

A simple Internet search for the article will bring you here to DU to read the complete article without paying .

Well stated and very clearly reasoned. Israel has indeed become the new home of Apartheid and must be dealt with as such. As Humanist and Progressive I agree.

I regret we must go further than divestment and unplug Israel's right wing war machine from our tax dollars. I do not condemn Israel for defending itself where necessary. What I can not tolerate is the manipulation of our government to suit the lunatic fears of the Right Wing in Israel (and here at home).

I strongly feel we should sharply reduce both foreign aid and military contracting with Israel. Our continued support of a regime which acts as bully to the region and abuses our diplomatic good faith is simply untenable on moral and financial grounds.

"Our continued support of a regime which acts as bully to the region and abuses our diplomatic good faith is simply untenable on moral and financial grounds."

The United States can't support a regional bully for moral reasons?

Are you familiar with US foreign policy over say the last sixty years?

Having watched it in action for the last 62 years the answer is: Yes, US foreign policy is far too familiar. Jimmy Carter got the axe for trying to change the basis of that policy and its goals... And we got the Reagan/Bush Christian Dominionist Hegemony.

I object to my tax money being spent to create and support a genocidal theocracy, whether here at home or in Israel. I didn't authorize Murder for Oil, either.

The US does not have a lot of moral authority on this score.

That the United states conducts its business in this manner does not make that conduct moral, after all.

The US is certainly not a country whose foreign policy is based on morality, nor is Israel.

The Ha'aretz headline doesn't match the content of the article.