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

RebuttalsThe Con argues that the BDS movement is immoral, ineffective, and anti-Semitic and that it harms the Palestinian economy. While the argument itself lacks any organization, I shall organize my responses as such.1. IneffectiveThe Con Argues that in order for someone to be willing to support BDS, that the burden of Proof should be on the Pro or the BDS movement. However, the Con must remember that he has agreed to the rules, a fact he notes in his second paragraph, and the rules state that the burden of proof in this debate will be shared. Regardless, his claim is that I the pro should have to prove why boycotting private companies would effect the Israeli government, however, this argument is illogical at best, and farcical at worst. The purpose of all boycotts is to place economic and social pressure on an institution or government. As the economy of Israel is made up of private companies, any boycott against Israel would thus be against those companies. The economic impact of BDS would be an overall contraction of the Israeli economy, prompting the government to concede the demands of the boycott in order to stop the economic decline.The Con then argues that people should not give up products they use currently if it has a chance of being ineffective. He cites an article from the Website of the Boycott National Committee, the Palestinian group which organized BDS, which he claims states that BDS is ineffective. However, this quote is taken out of context, as the paragraph following states: "It makes more sense to focus on optimal targets that are being targeted as part of national or international campaigns. Consumer boycotts are most effective when part of a broader campaign against a particular product or aiming to pressure a retailer to stop selling a particular Israeli product." [1]What the article he cites is really arguing is that it is more effective to have a directed and focused campaign which will be more impactful. Because of this, the Con's conclusion is nothing more than a straw man argument. The con has erected his straw man only to tear it down without actually arguing against the actual BDS movement's strategy. 2. Antisemitism and ImmoralityThe Con argues that BDS is anti-Semitic, as it "doesn't bring results to the Palestinians" and rather it angers (the Con uses more colorful language) Jewish business owners. The first part of this premise is based on the Straw man argument he previously made, and that I have shown to be false. The second part is that it angers Jewish Business owners, which he claims then furthers the stereotype of Jews being greedy, however, this premise does not support the conclusion. Any boycott would anger business owners, as it means a loss of business and thus profits, which is the purpose of all businesses, hints the term for-profit enterprise. In the case of BDS, many businesses which are being boycotted happen to be owned by people who are Jewish, as Israel is a Jewish Majority nation. He then claims that the Palestinian right to self-determination is simply a smokescreen for anti-Semites, however, yet again this claim is not supported by the facts. The Boycott National Committee is an organization made up OF Palestinian civil organizations who have been involved in the struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination since the beginning. These organizations are not hiding behind the Palestinian struggle, they ARE the Palestinian Struggle.The Con then argues that they do not care about human rights, because they do not speak out about other human rights issues, and he cites the persecution of Palestinian Christians and terrorist actions in the Occupied territories. This is a blatant red herring which does not actually argue against the BDS movement's goals, which are an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, full equality for Palestinian and Arab citizens of Israel, and the recognition of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.He then attempts to preemptively rebut the fact that BDS is only focused on Justice for the Palestinians, however, this is yet again a red herring. The BDS movement is built around their three demands. By citing their lack of response to the killing of Palestinians in Syria, the con only tries to distract from the issues that BDS is focused on. His claim that he has refuted every other motive for BDS other than Anti-Semitism is absurd, as he has not shown how the demands of the BDS movement are anti-Semitic at all. He then claims that the strategy of recruiting people is unjust, as it "demonizes those who disagree." He supports this claim by alleging that according to BDS he "does not have a conscience". This is yet another straw man. He says that the statement "BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice..." is the same as "those who do not support BDS have no conscience." This does not actually address the BDS movement at all. He then reiterates his previous straw man, which I have refuted.3. Palestinian EconomyThe Con claims that BDS harms the Palestinian economy, and thus is bad for Palestinians. However according to the World Bank, it is not BDS, but the Occupation, which BDS hopes to end, that harms the Palestinian Economy [2]. The fact that Israel controls such large portions of Palestinian land has been extremely detrimental to the Palestinian economy, not to mention that the Gaza Strip is cut off from all trade and commerce thanks to the Israeli blockade. To claim that BDS has harmed Palestinians, but the goal of ending the occupation is not going to help the Palestinian economy is plainly absurd. In order for the Palestinian economy to grow, the occupation must end, and that is the primary goal of BDS.Sources 1. https://bdsmovement.net...2. https://www.theguardian.com...