I don't know any of the BDS leaders but am willing to assume, with Finkelstein and Burston, that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Does this mean the present goal and actions they are advocating should not be pursued? If the stated goal is to end the Occupation and the proposed actions may advance this and not bring about the elimination of Israel, what is wrong with pursuing legal actions? Actions are facts on the ground while goals might change over time due to changing circumstances. In 1937 Ben Gurion was advocating for acceptance of the Peel Commission's recommendation to give the Jews a small state of their own. At the same time he wrote to his son that the state will expand. In 1947 he had similar thought about the UN Partition Resolution. Does this mean it was a fraud? It wasn't; the fact is that Ben Gurion change his mind later about expansion. Incidentally, the same can be said about the PLO. They want peace now and may harbor secret thought of later expansion. But reality is stronger than thoughts.
US rally shows support for ex-Marine held by Iran on spying charges (AP)
from the article: It's Israeli Apartheid Week. Just tell the truth