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

Wow Pro is quick to respond. Sources are in the comments. Contention 1: International Law and Human Rights What Pro points out is that I didn't make a bold and underlined title of this contention. I did however partially address it. Also keep in my mind that I had to respond to two rounds worth of arguments because of the structure whereas Pro had to respond to one. I do apologize but I did address some major aspects. My whole point was that this is not an issue of borders or about the specifics of resolution 242. If this was the case, perhaps I would agree with Pro. First of all Pro you did not really make a case for BDS with this contention so I wasn't sure how to respond. You were just making a case against Israel. I pointed out from round 2 that in order to support an organization, it is not only about whether it is a just cause or not but rather if it helps that particular cause. Nevertheless, let's examine the history. As I just mentioned, Pro does not really make an argument here but just points a few things out. I am going to assume he is concluding that BDS's issue with Israel is borders and if Israel gave up those borders that Pro mentioned, this would solve the Problem and satisfy BDS. Let's take this head on and examine the history: Pro referred to the 1967 war and pointed out that Israel gave the Sinai, larger than the entire state of Israel to Egypt for peace. This is rather silly for Pro to mention because if we apply this logic, Israel really should give the West Bank to Jordan and not the Palestinians as they were the ones who attacked from there. We should also glean that Israel is clearly in favor of the idea of land for peace given the fact that they gave up huge and beneficial territory to them for the sake of peace. As for the West Bank, in 1967 Israel accepted Resolution 242 which is essentially land for peace. Palestinian leadership and the Arab countries met in Khartoum and issued what is famously known as the 3 no's of Khartoum: "No negotiation, No recognition, No peace”. They have additionally offered the land for peace since that time on at least 3 occasions they refused even after Israel withdrew from Gaza. They even refused Israel withdrawing from 93% of the West Bank [1]. One would think that generous peace offers should at least quell issues with the BDS but instead they continue and even increase in their ferocity. This is a crucial point that Pro fails to comprehend: You cannot distinguish the principle of something based on those that practice it. In short, it is ridiculous to put the emphasis that Pro puts on the occupation and frames it as the root of the problem as BDS does as well. To pretend that this is an issue of borders is delusional. Israel pulled out of Gaza and got nothing but rockets, terror attacks, and tunnels used with Israeli concrete that was given by the government to be used for building houses for the Palestinians and actually killed 160 Palestinian children in the process [3]. Pro now has a few challenges he must address to defend BDS. With this evidence, Pro now has a few challenges he must address. The first one is how can BDS expect Israel to just simply withdraw from these areas without any security assurances? Secondly, Pro I believe has an obligation to demonstrate that Palestinians were right to reject many of these peace and state offers. If not, we (Pro included) should recognize and conclude that BDS is not the way to go for the future of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. South Africa I concede that the boycotts worked in South Africa. I did address this Pro. I was showing that this bares no significance. They are two different cases that need to be analyzed individually which was the point I was trying to make. Sanctions can work sometimes but others they don't. Like for example it didn't work on North Korea. I will make clear for Pro's sake that he did not directly compare Israel's policies to South Africa. But I will say that there are implications for unnecessarily bringing them to the table. Fair? Contention 3: BDS has already shown success Pro is demonstrating pretty limited thinking here. He once again fails to grasp points I made that addressed this point simply because I didn't bold and underline a title saying it. Ask and you shall receive. The point I made previously about this numerous times is simple. To quote myself from before: "In order for someone to support a boycott, it is not a question of whether it is successful, but rather if that success actually assists the cause." I think Pro should agree that this is at least an attempt to address this point even if he doesn't agree with it and it's simply false to assume I conceded it. To pursue it even further, after further investigating Pro's evidence he neglects to mention something from his own source that is rather significant. The company that Pro mentioned actually says their decision had "had nothing to do with the BDS campaign". The article continues: " A spokesman for the company told Newsweek: “We have now got 65 businesses that since 2013 that have been identified for sale or closure, so Israel is actually just one of those”. “It is an entirely commercial decision.” So really it is not even completely clear that BDS is responsible for this. If you want to believe, as I'm sure Pro does, that BDS is responsible for than the previous challenges still stand. Anti-Semitism Pro's analogy: This is a false comparison because Pro kind puts me in the lense of the actual bank robber which is false. Pro needs to keep in mind that we are a third party so we are neither bank robbers nor the muggers. It is still ilegitimate for the police not to go after the 15 muggers. This also a flawed analogy because I believe Pro actually has conceded my point that it is not "other problems" in the countries but exponentially worse problems. I believe he also conceded that Israel is the greatest country in the Middle East for Arabs in terms of human rights. Instead of applauding this country Pro is criticizing it. I don't see how he doesn't find it problematic in it of itself. A more proper analogy would be that there are 15 murderers in a city and the police go after the one person who violates parking laws and framing him as the problem in the city. Even this I wouldn't say is spot on because it would be wrong to see Israel as foundationally a criminal country. Pro brings up an organization that I truthfully have never heard of called Code Pink. But he is really proving my points by doing this. Code Pink is very clear that they don't single out Saudi Arabia, they have a global goal, and they don't hold a double standard on a country which is the point that I was trying to make. They stand for principle. BDS is an organization directed at this one country with all the qualifications that Pro and I seem to have agreed on. This is problematic to single out this particular country and have a double standard. This is why it shouldn't be so hard to believe that I conclude that they are Anti-Semitic. With regards to my statements about Hamas, in case I was not clear I was referring to them as a Palestinian leadership. It is true that they are not recognized as the Palestinian leadership to be negotiated with as they are a terrorist organization. I do think it should be pointed out the more Palestinians do support Hamas over the Palestinian Authority [3]. I don't think Pro properly characterizes Fatah. They are still responsible for terror attacks and have threatened for more [4]. Pro also ignored my evidence by claiming Hamas doesn't call for the destruction of Jews worldwide. I don't know why he is choosing defend a claim against a terrorist organization but I gave evidence of one example where they call for the murder of Jews worldwide. To quote it: “This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.” And this is just their charter to be clear they have called for it on numerous other occasions. I didn't think Pro could sink any lower but he is citing the terrorist Khaled of Hamas as a source and even more repulsive is that he is believing him! It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious to actually believe a terrorist like him. It is clear Pro doesn't understand how two faced this man is so I must address this. In English to the American press he says this but at the same time he is praising the killing of Jews! [5] I will admit to Pro that I cannot give evidence of a source that explicitly says BDS is Anti-Semitic. And it would be wrong for someone to expect that. The way these conclusions are made is you analyze all the other facts that I mentioned. I have proven that BDS comprises of numerous Anti-Semites and that by supporting BDS, especially on college campuses, they are most probably going to at least be associating with Anti-Semites. The BDS founder Omar Barghouti actually doesn't even recognize the Jewish State. He says "Definitely most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine". He additionally says "Good riddance" to the two state solution [6]. Palestinian Economy Con is quite hypocritical here. He is criticizing me for citing only one example of how the BDS harms the Palestinian economy when his premise of BDS's success was also based on only one example. I, however, gave a logical reason as to why it harms the economy and used SodaStream as one example. If you would like data, ask and you shall receive [7]. Out of space. Rest next round.