The boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli occupation has been framed alternatively as a nonviolent transnational social movement based on the principles of international law, and as a form of “war by other means” that seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel. These rival framings of the BDS movement reflect different conceptions of the conflict at hand and the best tools for “resolving” it. Arguments for and against BDS, as well as the organized campaigns to promote or contain BDS, also illustrate a range of deployed ‘Jewish’, ‘Israeli’, and ‘Palestinian’ identities. Drawing on interviews with activists (for and against BDS) as well as organizational websites, campaign materials, and recent Israeli legislation against boycotts, the paper uses social movement theory, peace and conflict studies frameworks, and discourse analysis to investigate how identity is constructed and deployed in the context of BDS movements and how activists (for and against BDS) envisage a ‘resolution’ to the conflict. In particular, the paper draws on Galtung’s conflict triangle (direct-strategic-cultural violence) and Ramsbotham’s concept of “linguistic intractability” to analyze how more than simply a contest between rival narratives, the contestations between opponents and supporters of BDS tactics reflect competing worldviews and perspectives not only regarding how identity is classified, but also orientations to concepts such as “violence”, “peace” and “human rights”. The paper will draw on cases such as Code Pink’s “Stolen Beauty” campaign, the Olympia food co-op boycott, and the Presbyterian Church USA’s debates over “moral investment” to illustrate rival conceptions of the core conflict issues and the particular role of Jewish identity in defining the scope of “acceptable” activism vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The paper will discuss the implications of these constructs for efforts to achieve a “just and lasting peace” in the region