Here, Norman Finkelstein asks me to shut up. So let me speak: 1) I don't know why Norman thinks that he has stumbled on a brilliant discovery when he maintains that the BDS movements fails in reconciling its non-support for two-state (non) solution with international law. 2) Notice that he--to make his debate easier on himself--treats BDS as if it is a centralized Maoist party headed by a chairman and that whatever the chairman says applies to the whole movement. 3) Why does Norman treat international law as if it is a holy text that has one meaning and one interpretation only. 4) this thesis that international law insists on the existence of Israel is debatable at best; 5) international law is fluid and can reflect changes on the ground: the American occupation of Iraq was at first against international law and then the US forced the UN to legitimize it and then it became presented as consistent with international law. 6) the citations he gave don't make his case: so what if international law is invoked; it does not mean that based on that, and due to Norman's interpretation of international law, all those who support BDS are obligated to accept the existence of Israel. 7)International law can be contested and should be. 8) a strong case can be mad that the very existence of Israel is in fact against international law.