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

Regarding the sources: I attempted to put them in the debate but wasn't able to and Pro's 5th rule indicates that sources can be posted in the comments. I apologize if that inconvenienced Pro or changed anything. I see it as nothing more but an inconvenience to the voters so I apologize to you guys for that. Onto the actual debate: Contention 1: International Law Pro: "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" This is exactly what I took it as initially Pro. But in the previous round you were trying to make it as if I dropped this argument. You still have failed to address my response about how the conflict shouldn't be framed as an issue of borders. As for Pro's point about Jordan, this doesn't change anything I have mentioned. Just because Jordan characterized it as Palestinian land doesn't change the fact that it was under Jordanian control prior to that and there was no such movement to give this land to the Palestinians while they were under this Arab government. And since Pro brought up Jordan, it should be noted that Jordan is at least in a proper position to criticize Israel because they went after other Arab countries for their actions in regard to this situation. Jordan is actually the only country that took in Palestinian refugees whereas the rest of them confined them in refugee, refused them citizenship, and used their plight as a political weapon against Israel. King Hussein said that since 1948 the Arab leaders "have used the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes", and calls it "criminal" for them to do so [1]. Again, going after the other Arab countries is not as Pro previously suggested which is to excuse the current issue. It's to show if somebody stands by principle. BDS does not. Pro was attacking Israel initially regarding resolution 242. I simply gave the history behind it which was Israel accepted it Palestinians and Arabs once again had the mindset "No negotiation, no recognition, no peace". I have additionally proved that Israel offered such land numerous times after that. Pro then brings up a two-state solution that was proposed. This is something that BDS is against. BDS is actually the organization that would violate international law if their proposals are successful. One of the leading BDS activists, As'ad Abukhalil, clearly admits that "the real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel" he additionally continues "Justice and freedom for Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel"[2]. It is therefore immoral to support an organization that wants to bring down the state of Israel and this is only additional proof that BDS does not truly believe in a two state solution. With regards to international law, BDS policy clearly violates this. One of the BDS movement’s three central demands that even Pro I believe hinted at is, a “right of return” to Israel for millions of Palestinian refugees. If millions of Palestinians move to Israel, Israel will be eliminated, achieving their goal as mentioned above, and replaced with a Palestinian state. This would violate international law and the collective rights of the Jewish people [3]. Pro has once again pointed out facts that help my case. He points out how BDS rejects everything that didn't completely meet their demands. He suggests that it is correct for them to reject them because they didn't get everything they want. This is what I like to call 2-year old logic. In order to achieve peace there is something called compromise. As I have proven Israel has historically been willing to compromise. BDS puts no pressure for the Palestinians to do the same as Pro's statements point out. Pro claims: "The Con cites the disengagement from Gaza, however, fails to link this to the demands of BDS" I will classify this as nothing less than utter fabrication. I will leave a direct quote from me last round and let the voters decide if I wasn't clear about the connection. I wrote: "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". I later made the point about security assurances. Pro clearly didn't take in my point about borders because he suggests that terrorist attacks will end as long as Israel makes concessions which is again framing this as an issue of borders and is beyond non-sensical. Withdrawing from the border is what started the election of Hamas in the first place and Pro did not give any assurances otherwise that such policies of withdrawals would not embolden Hamas as and terrorism as it has done in the past. I clearly prove here that this is not an issue of borders. Pro failed to take in this clear point. Terrorist attacks occurred even before 1967 [4]. I didn't intend to address the specifics of each international law Pro. If you read the points I just made above I made it very clear why and you, yourself, even hinted at it in the beginning of this round. Summary of this point: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not one of borders! The BDS movement is wrong for suggesting it and for not placing an iota of accountability on the Palestinians to end terrorism and further negotiations. They seek to violate international law and they claim it is an order to stop the violation of international law. South Africa Point taken, Pro, regarding the North Korea comparison as that was an important distinction. However, the larger point regarding boycotts I think still stands. As mentioned I never argued against South Africa. I just wanted to make the distinction between the two countries. I clearly proved that Israel is not an apartheid country pro did not even address it. I assume that meant he conceded but it turns out I was wrong. He rather wanted to make clear that he "made no such statement". Pro doesn't argue or give evidence to the contrary rather he just ignores mine. Pro also didn't respond to my main point which is that this bares no significance. He simply asserts that this is to change the policies but once again gives no evidence in regards to Israel. Summary of this point: Once again, simple success of boycotts is not the issue when deciding to support the boycotts. It is, as I said from the beginning, if that success assists the cause. There is no evidence on that from Pro's side and I gave evidence to the contrary. Like in Bangladesh for example the boycott can be successful but it harms the everyday people economically [5]. BDS's success I looked into Pro's actual source and quoted it directly and he still claims I didn't respond to it. He ignores the point that I made in bold above. I knew exactly what he was referring to and I responded to it accordingly. And anyway the specifics don’t have to do with the larger point I made. Summary of this point: Same as the point above. Anti-Semitism Pro is refusing to acknowledge facts and it is difficult to have an honest discussion. I conceded to Pro's points when I felt they were valid but Pro refuses to accept the basic fact that I proved that Israel is the best country in the Middle East for human rights FOR ARABS. Pro refuses to acknowledge this. He suggests boycotting Israel completely is the way to go and not negotiating like Israel has offered as I proved previously. Pro doesn't even feel that it is applying a double standard to condemn the greatest country in the Middle East for human rights and not one other country. I don't know how else to hammer this point. Even if I concede to every point about international law that Pro made, it is nevertheless a double standard. Pro completely dropped his point about Code Pink and my response to it which is very relevant. Code Pink stands for principles everywhere whereas BDS stands on the notion of hatred for the one nation where human rights are best in the Middle East. If pro didn't ignore this point he would see why Hamas is simply further evidence of this point. I was trying to show how bad Hamas is and how they are not condemned by BDS. Pro unfortunately has resorted to vote-pandering instead of focusing on the discussion at hand and leaving voting matters to the voters. He then makes an absurd claim that I have no better point to make than to make Pro waste his character space. He even falsely labels it as trolling. Pro is correct regarding the founders of BDS and I apologize if I wasn't clear so to correct myself Omar Barghouti is one of the founders. Summary of this point: Since my first round of argument I characterized BDS being anti-Semitic as my opinion. Pro is the one who falsely labeled it as if it was one of my main arguments. I just gave the facts and my conclusion from those facts. I allow the voters or anyone to draw their own conclusions from these facts. What I have proven: BDS is loaded with Anti-Semites all the way up to their founders, they single out the only Jewish State, and they have never condemned Anti-Semitism. If they are not anti-Semitic they are at least fine with it. Palestinian Economy Pro doesn't care anymore because he thinks he got the votes for it. Thank you pro for the debate and for your time and thank you to the voters for reading this long debate. Sources: 1. http://www.meforum.org... 2. http://english.al-akhbar.com... 3. https://bdsmovement.net... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...