I totally agree that this is big, and has a lot of good ramifications for moving the boycott forward. But I also think that every step in mainstreaming BDS, which we have to do, brings new difficulties with it.
Joseph Massad has written really well about the risk of the boycott tactic being co-opted, used apart from the leadership of the BDS movement to save Israel from its own self-destructive right wingers. He points to European governments and the UN recognizing (22% of) Palestine as an effort to resuscitate the two-state solution and take the wind out of the sails of the Palestinian cause.
Like settlement-only boycotts, a Zionist boycott divorced from BDS - a movement under Palestinian leadership that keeps it grounded in the three demands - could be a way to preserve Israel as a racist state. As BDS continues to go mainstream, this could be something European and even US elites support. If they can nominally end the 1967 occupation that's giving Israel such a black eye, they could preserve Israel as a state "for one people and one people only," permanently shut the door on Palestinian refugees' return, and create a fake Palestinian state in the occupied territories.
Again I totally agree this is a positive step. We have to mainstream BDS, and accept with the political risks that come with that. The way to confront those risks is to keep building BDS as a mass, grassroots movement firmly committed to all three goals and the BNC leadership. Every boycott and divestment campaign must not be afraid to proudly identify as part of the BDS movement and not be afraid to put forward all three goals, not just the occupation.
At some point, if we generate enough pressure without having built a mass movement around all three demands, it could be disastrous.
Gotta disagree here. I don't see how one electoral victory for "liberal" Zionism will marginalize right-wing Zionism, or provide an opening for anti-Zionism.
We have to parse out the idea that the Zionist Union will be "more obedient to world opinion and the European Union." Popular opinion around the world is different from the aims of the EU and the United States, who want their "watchdog" in Israel to be back on the leash. Joseph Massad makes a compelling argument that recent EU decisions to recognize "Palestine" are geared towards creating a reservation, under the collaborationist PA, on 22% of Palestine. Pressure from the US, in the form of Kerry's "apartheid" comment and White House warnings about a "tsunami" of boycotts, have similar aims. They're trying to resurrect what Adam Hanieh rightly calls the two-state strategy, and the Zionist Union will too. They'll try to repair the fissure created by rabid right-wing Zionism that's at odds with the US & EU, a fissure anti-Zionists can exploit.
It's really hard to believe that right-wing Zionism will suddenly go away with the Zionist Union in power. One defeat will not marginalize them, and J-Street, still excluded from much of anti-Palestinian in the US, will not suddenly take over. They _will_ become more relevant - and that's a problem.
The impotence of "liberal" Zionism has highlighted its impossible contradictions, forcing people to choose between right-wing Zionism and anti-Zionism, far more coherent positions. Its resurgence could revitalize the two-state illusion that needs to die, pushing the discourse back to the false choice between different strains of Zionism.
I don't mean to say that a win for the Zionist Union is the end of the world, but I think it does create another hurdle. I would prefer delusional enemies to ones who knows their limits.