Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS)

The con notes that his sources are in the comments, however, the rules state that sources must be posted IN THE DEBATE. As the sources were not posted in the debate, the sources should be disregarded as such. Contention 1: International Law The Con claims that this convention doesn't support the resolution, however, this intention is meant to serve as inherency and provide the reason as to Why BDS is necessary.The con then argues that since the Sinai was returned to Egypt in the Camp David Accords in 1973, that, therefore, the West Bank should be returned to Jordan as it was under Jordanian Control in 1967. This concept, however, is simply illogical, given that in the Jordan-Israel Peace Agreement, signed in 1994, Jordan recognized the West Bank as Palestinian Territory under Israeli occupation [1].The 3 No's of the Khartoum Resolution of 1967, which the con cites, were effectively the policy of the Arab League, until 2002. At the 2002 Beirut Summit, Saudi Arabia proposed the Arab Peace Initiative which proposed a two-state solution and a path to normalized relations with Israel. This proposal is a clear break with the Khartoum Resolution, as it not only endorses peace but endorses eventual recognition and fully endorses negotiation [2]. Additionally, this proposal would meet the demands of BDS.The Con notes that Israel has offered some land for Peace on three occasions. He claims that BDS is, therefore, irrelevant because Israel has offered land for peace, however, BDS is not demanding this, BDS demands a complete end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, ie the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This has never been offered by Israel, and therefore BDS is necessary.The Con cites the disengagement from Gaza, however, fails to link this to the demands of BDS.As to the first question posed by the Con, BDS expects Israel to act under the pressure placed on it and understand that it can relieve the pressure by submitting to the demands. Security assurance would come in the form of ending the cause of terrorist attacks, ie the occupation. As to the Second question, the Palestinian government was right to reject the proposals as they did not provide a just peace settlement which would include the right of return, the end of the occupation and the complete withdrawal from the West Bank. If a deal does not meet your requirements it should, therefore, be rejected.Additionally, the Con has not responded to the violations of the 4th Geneva convention or the findings of the International Court of Justice. Contention 2: South AfricaThe Con concedes that a similar BDS campaign succeeded in South Africa but then argues that US sanctions on North Korea have been a failure and therefore BDS will not necessarily be successful. However, this example fails as while the US and Europe conduct a great deal of business with Israel, just as they did with South Africa, the US and Europe have never conducted any significant amount of business with the DPRK and thus any sanctions placed in it would be unsuccessful as a result. It also fails as while the goals of the on Sanctions on the DPRK are meant to isolate and punish an enemy nation, and weaken and destabilize a nation. Meanwhile, the Boycott of South Africa and BDS are intended to change specific policies of the nation in question. Contention 3: BDS’s successThe Con responds to arguments about Soda Stream, however, I never argued that BDS caused Soda Stream to withdraw from the West Bank. The Argument I made was about the British security firm G4S. Given this, the Con has still failed to respond to this argument. Anti-SemitismThe con claims I conceded Israel is the best country for human rights in the middle east, however, I made no such statement. Rather I contended that Israel is in violation of multiple international agreements and UN resolutions and that these issues must be addressed and BDS is a way to address them. The con alleges I am applying a double standard however the standards being applied are UN resolutions and International law, and because of Israel’s failure to abide by these resolutions and other international agreements despite having 49 years to do so. Because of this BDS is necessary.The issue of Hamas comes up again in this round. The con makes several claims about Hamas, the Hamas Charter, the Palestinian leadership, Fatah, Khaled Mashal and myself in this argument, however, this argument, as I have previously pointed out, is in no way relevant to this debate. By continuing this line of debate the con has demonstrated a lack of respect for the rules of this debate which explicitly prohibit trolling. As the Con’s goal is clearly to force me to waste characters responding to this irrelevant argument. Because of this, the Con is ineligible to get any points for conduct.The Con acknowledges that he cannot give any evidence showing that BDS promotes hatred of, or discrimination against Jews, and then claims that it would be wrong to expect this, however, this statement is simply illogical as it contradicts the entire concept of the burden of proof, which is shared in this debate. Due to the lack of any evidence, the Con instead relies on association fallacies to support his claim, however, association fallacies by definition do not justify allegations such as those made by the Con.The Con mentions Omar Barghouti, claiming he is the founder BDS, however, while Omar Barghouti is not the founder of BDS. Omar Barghouti was a founding member of the Boycott national committee, BDS itself had no single founder and was founded by 170 Palestinian political parties, trade unions, NGOs and other organizations representing Palestinian civil society [3]. Moreover, the Con fails to show how this supports his claim that BDS is anti-Semitic. Palestinian EconomyThe Con’s argument in round 4 relies on an ad hominem and does not actually respond to the World Bank’s findings. He claims to provide a source, however as it was not posted in the debate, as the rule require, the source provided is not considered part of the debate. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law and that boycotts have been successful in the past, as in South Africa. I have also shown that BDS is itself has demonstrated success. I have thus met the burden of proof. The con meanwhile has relied on red herrings, ad hominems, and strawmen to support his claims. He has not met the burden of proof and has shown a complete disregard for the rules. The arguments he has made themselves have lacked overall consistency.At the end of this debate, I can only see a full 7 point vote for the Pro.The Resolution is Affirmed.Vote Pro Sources1. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo...2. http://www.jcpa.org...3. https://bdsmovement.net...