Nathan: "The last section of the article ... is about “strengthening public and popular opposition to any possible change of policies towards normalizing relations with Israel in the region”. There is no indication whatsoever that this might mean that there will be no normalization with Israel until she meets the demands of BDS."
That is clearly implied. Israel has made no moves to end its apartheid policies, hence no normalization. Once Israel begins complying with international law and makes tangible moves towards respecting Palestinians' rights, then we will talk about normalization and shutting down the boycotts, just like the South African boycott campaign didn't start talking about normalization or ending the boycotts until the South African government started inching towards allowing majority rule.
"There is no connection between the demands of the BDS movement and ending the conflict with Israel."
That's just stupid. BDS' demands are the conditio sine qua non of any just peace: compliance with international law and respect for the rights of all peoples in I/P. If Israel agreed to the 3 demands of BDS and international law, they would have peaceful relations with all the neighboring states and would no longer be in conflict with any of the major Palestinian factions.
"The Arab Peace Proposal is conditionalized by there being an agreement on the issue of refugees. "
Actually, the Arab Peace Proposal is purposefully vague about the refugees to allow Israel as much wiggle room as possible. International law and basic morality, however, are much clearer: the Right to Return is a fundamental legal and moral right.
"The Palestinians, however, have no intention of renewing peace talks with Israel, "
That's actually the exact opposite of the truth, but whatever.
Nathan, the article presumes a basic familiarity with the BDS movement. The BDS movement has 3 demands and if those demands are met, the movement becomes defunct, just like the South African boycott movement dissolved once majority rule was achieved. The 3 demands of BDS are:
1) An end to the occupation
2) A recognition of the Right of Return and an end to the ethnic cleansing policies began in 1947/48.
3) A guarantee of legal equality for Palestinians living within Israel.
Those 3 demands are also a stronger version (particularly w/ regards to number 2) of the Arab Peace Proposal. According to this proposal, if Israel ends the occupation and comes to a satisfactory agreement on points 2 and 3, every Arab state would end hostilties with Israel, open an embassy in Tel Aviv and allow Israel to open one in their capitals and work towards economic, military and intelligence-sharing co-operation with Israel. In other words, peace and normalization in exchange for ending apartheid (or at least ending the occupation). Israel has so far chosen to ignore this peace proposal because it has virtually all the leverage and has decided that occupation and apartheid are preferable to peace with their neighbors.
The idea that BDS is not about securing peace is just silly; BDS' demands are precisely that Israel allow peace by ending apartheid. BDS is not about boycotting Israel for fun; it's about putting pressure to end the oppression of the Palestinian people and, with that, to allow for peace. That pressure, by definition, requires that the boycotts and sanctions end once the demands are met; otherwise, the movement is by definition incapable of achieving its goals (if BDS were to be simply "boycott Israel forever no matter what it does", then it would not be able to exert any pressure on Israel to change its behavior since no change in behavior would affect the boycotts and sanctions.) Quite frankly, I imagine the article's author didn't say "once BDS' demands are met, we will call for an end to the boycotts" because it seemed too obvious to need stating.
"Can some form of Zionism exist, consistent with Palestinian rights? If so, then labeling all of Zionism as racism is a political conflation. "
Here's the thing; what-if-isms are interesting but not very pertinent. Yes, if history had followed a different path, a Zionism could have formed that was not racist. But that's not how it turned out; Zionism doesn't mean like it once could a belief in forming a Jewish spiritual community or colonizing land which had been obtained legitimately(ie, through the consent of the former inhabitants.) But it didn't. In today's world, Zionism means support for the current state of Israel as an apartheid state(ie, as a state that uses its power to maintain the racial privilege of one group over others)
"One can oppose specific policies of the Israeli government, without denying all of Zionism, and without denying Israel’s right to exist, with a predominately Jewish people and culture. "
Considering that Israel created its "predominately Jewish" demographics by ethnically cleansing between 750, 000 and a million Palestinian civilians then refusing their fundamental right to return to their land, how exactly can you support the "right" of Israel to maintain a Jewish demographic majority through the denial of Palestinians' rights without being racist? Jews in Israel have a right to live there in safety and with equal protection and rights under the law as do the Palestinians and the region's Druze and Bedouin but neither they nor any group have a right to form a state's demographics to their liking through ethnic cleansing.