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

Contention 1: International Law and Human RightsThe Con has failed to respond to this contention and thus we can assume it has been conceded.Contention 2: South AfricaIn my opening arguments in round 2, I cited the boycott against Apartheid South Africa as an example of how boycott and divestment campaigns are successful and effective. While the con does acknowledge this, the con then argues that it is intellectually dishonest to compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa, however, I did not actually make this comparison. Nowhere in Contention 2 did I argue that Israel is like apartheid South Africa. The con does not actually address the actual argument made in this contention, and thus the contention stands.Contention 3: BDS has already shown successThe Con has failed to respond to this contention and thus we can assume it has been conceded.Anti-Semitism RebuttalThe Con argues that BDS is Anti-Semitic because it is against the Jewish state, as compared to any of the neighboring states. While it is true Israel is a Jewish state, the BDS movement targets Israel not because of this, but because of the occupation of Palestine and the violation of international law and UN resolutions, as I noted in round 2.The Con cites the poor state of Human rights in other Middle Eastern nations, however, this is the same red herring as the Con provided in the previous round. The fact is that Israel is violating international law and UN resolutions and continues to annex larger and large swaths of land from the West Bank through the creation of illegal settlements. By pointing out the problems in other nations, the Con only attempts to distract from the crimes being committed. It is like a bank robber pointing out that there are 15 muggers along 5th avenue and thus the police should release the Bank Robber and go arrest the muggers. This is not to say that the human rights violations and terrorist acts being committed elsewhere in the middle east do not matter. But to continue the analogy, while the muggers may still be committing crimes, the Bank robber still needs to be addressed, and we have the ability to address the bank robber now.In addition, it must be noted that the lack of boycotts on nations like Saudi Arabia is not a matter of principle, but a matter of practicality. The main export of Saudi Arabia is petroleum, which is a capital resource, not a consumer product. It should also be noted that there are campaigns that call for divestment from Saudi Arabia. The peace group Code Pink, which supports BDS, has continually called for an end to all arms sales to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights abuses [1]. The Con then moves on to criticize Hamas, which he states is the Palestinian leadership. This, however, is false. The Palestinian National Authority, which does not actually support BDS, is that actual political leadership of the State of Palestine [2]. The Con cites the Hamas charter as a reason to be opposed to BDS, however, it must first be noted that Hamas is not the only political party in Palestine, and while Hamas is in power in Gaza, the secular, centre-left Fatah is in power in the West Bank and controls the PNA. However due to the occupation, the PNA has effectively no power and only acts as a negotiator on behalf of the Palestinian people. Secondly, it should be noted that the Hamas charter does not actually call for the destruction of Jews worldwide, but only the state of Israel. While it the overall language used is anti-semitic, the claim that it calls for the destruction of Jews is simply false [3]. Third, the leader of Hamas Khaled Mashal has stated that the Hamas Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[4] Lastly, and most importantly, BDS and Hamas are not one in the Same. The Palestinian people and Hamas are not one and the same. The Boycott National Committee is a group made up of organizations representing Palestinian Civil society, and Hamas is not one of these organizations. The Con then claims that because anti-Semitism is high in the West Bank and Gaza, therefore BDS is anti-semitic. While I did state that the organizations make up the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, more accurately they make up part of the Palestinian struggle as other organizations are involved as well, I did not claim they represent the Palestinian people as a whole, but rather the desire for self-determination.The con then goes on to cite allegations of people involved in BDS who may be anti-semitic. However this is an example of an association fallacy: because someone associated with BDS was anti-Semitic, the movement as a whole is anti-Semitic. However, this claim does not hold as the organization itself does not promote or support the hatred of or discrimination against Jews.This is above all the problem with the Con's argument. The con Claims that BDS is anti-Semitic, however as anti-Semitism is defined as the hatred of Jewish people, thus far the Con has not given any evidence to support the claim that BDS promotes hatred of Jewish people or prejudice against Jewish people. Therefore to Say BDS is Anti-Semitic is simply false.Lastly, the Con again uses a strawman argument concerning a statement from the BDS website which includes the term "people of conscience". This argument is a nonsensical strawman, the basic premise of which is refuted by Contention 1.Palestinian EconomyThe con claims that the BDS harms the economy, and criticizes my response to this argument which cited the Work Bank, which stated that the occupation is harming the Palestinian economy. While the con did provide an anecdote of SodaStream, he does not actually provide any other evidence to why BDS harms the Palestinian economy. The con has not shown how much BDS actually costs the Palestinian economy, and given no data showing a correlation between BDS and economic hardships. Given that the occupation has cost the Palestinian economy $3.4 billion dollars, approximately 35% of its GDP. He also claims his evidence showed Palestinians and Israelis working together, however, the example of SodaStream does not actually show this, rather it shows Israelis employing Palestinians in a factory which was a part of an illegal settlement, built land which once belonged to said, employees. How this example is related to a peace deal the Con has yet to demonstrate.The fact remains that in order for the Palestinian economy to grow, Israel will need to give up at a minimum 61% of the terrritory in the West Bank which they control [5]. Given that, an end to the occupation is one of the central goals of BDS, it should, therefore, follow that people should support BDS in order to help Palestine gain access to the land it needs to grow its economy.1. http://www.codepink.org...2. http://www.usnews.com...3. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...4. http://www.wrmea.org...5. https://www.theguardian.com...