In his article about a discussion which took place during the Bil'in conference, Uri speaks explicitly against boycott as a means of pressuring Israel into accepting the One State model.

In Gush Shalom there is consensus about the two-state solution being the only solution supported by enough people on both sides and therefore having the potential of being implemented without a lot more bloodshed and passage of time.

However a minority in Gush Shalom, to which I personally belong, supports encouraging groups abroad to a general boycott as a means to bring the occupation to an end, and thereby making the way free for the two-state solution.

As the one who answers English language emails for Gush Shalom I often get questions about whether Gush Shalom, as a staunch opponent of the occupation, also supports divestment from, and/or cultural or general boycott of Israel. Here follows the sort of answer which I generally give:

"Gush Shalom has been active for more than ten years in campaigning inside and outside Israel for the boycott of settlement products but as an Israeli organization is not calling for a general boycott of Israel. However international groups may have their own considerations. To our fellow Israelis we explain that the continued occupation is to blame for the rise of international initiatives in the direction of divestment and boycott of Israel."

Let me add one more thing: Though I don't think that the One Staters have any chance to achieve their aim, I don't see them as a threat. Rather than interfering with the struggle for a fair two-state compromise, they may actually, against their own wish, be a factor to bring it about.

On the Israeli side, the threat of one state in which the Jewish majority would be narrow or non-existent actually strengthens the negotiating position of the two-staters.

I know that many of those who now propagate one state are former two-state adepts who simply lost hope that any sincere two-state solution would ever come about. Sincere, that is: without diminishing any rights of Israel's Palestinian-Arab citizens; with the '67 borders as borders of peace between Israel and Palestine (with a possibility of agreed border corrections); a shared Jerusalem hosting the capitals of both states; and acceptance by Israel of Naqba responsibility, i.e. compensation and/or return for the refugees; in short: all what we wrote in our 2001 Declaration of Principles for Peace Agreement.

Meanwhile, we should remain united in the struggle against the occupation, and not get hopelessly divided in a fight over the number of states.