The Instigator
BrendanD19
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BrendanD19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 905 times Debate No: 93856
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

BrendanD19

Pro

This debate will be over the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement better known as BDS. The Pro will argue in favor of BDS, and the Con shall argue against BDS.

DEBATE STRUCTURE
1. Acceptance, No Arguments
2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments

RULES
1. The burden of proof is shared
2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss
3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate.
4. The character limit is 10,000
5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments.
6. No Kritiks
7. No Semantics
8. No Trolling
9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate.
10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct.
LaL36

Con

Sorry for the delay. I accept. Good luck Pro! Let's do this!
Debate Round No. 1
BrendanD19

Pro

I want to begin by thanking the con for accepting this debate.
I will begin by giving an overview of what BDS is and then I will go into my arguments

Background
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is an international campaign to place economic, social and political pressure of the State of Israel to end the occupation of Palestine, grant full equality to Arab/Palestinians Citizens of Israel and recognize the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
It began in 2005 when 170 non-governmental organizations in Palestine, including political parties, trade unions, youth groups and academic organizations, issued a call to the international community to place pressure on Israel through boycotts and international sanctions. [1]

Contention 1: International Law and Human Rights
The State of Israel is committing numerous violations of International law, human rights, and UN resolutions [2]. In this debate I shall focus on the issues related to the occupation.
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal under numerous treaties and UN Resolutions. After seizing the territory in 1967, the United Nations Security Council issued resolution 242, which called upon Israel to immediately withdraw from all territories captured in the 6 Day War (The West Bank, the Gaza strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Golan Heights). While Israeli forces have withdrawn from the Sinai and returned the Territory to Egypt, and Israeli forces have "disengaged" from Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are still under Israeli occupation and thus Israel is in violation of this resolution [3].
Further violations of International law include the annexation of Jerusalem, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which restricts the annexation of territory taken in war. This view is affirmed by the United Nations
Perhaps the biggest violation of international law in regards to the occupation is the creation of settlements in these territories. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention states that it is illegal to transfer the citizens of the occupying nation to occupied territories [5]. This interpretation was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2004 [5].

Contention 2: South Africa Shows Boycotts Work
The international boycott and divestment campaign against apartheid South Africa demonstrates how campaigns like BDS can be successful [7]. Sanctions and Divestment from South Africa, especially in the US and the UK caused a great deal of strain on the South African economy. This ultimately forced the South African government to agree to end apartheid and hold democratic elections which resulted in the end to the boycotts and sanctions [8]. While the short term campaign did not result in the end of apartheid, in the long term campaign did [9]. However this only was able to happen because the movement gained enough support in the public that states and large corporations became involved and implemented sanctions and divestment policies of their own.

Contention 3: BDS has already show success
BDS has already been successful in causing companies to divest from the Israeli occupation. A recent example of this is the British security company G4S recently announced that they would be selling their Israeli subsidiary in response to pressure from the BDS movement [10]. In order to achieve greater sucess, however, more people will need to support the BDS movement.

Sources
[1] https://bdsmovement.net...
[2] http://www.diakonia.se...
[3] http://www.un.org...
[4] http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu...
[5] http://www.jpost.com...
[6] http://www.icj-cij.org...
[7] http://www.investopedia.com...
[8] http://2001-2009.state.gov...
[9] http://www.aljazeera.com...
[10] http://www.independent.co.uk...
LaL36

Con

Thank you Pro again for instigating and good luck! I'd like to appologize for the delay I have been very busy and in the middle of another debate. I hope this is adequate time.

Truthfully, I never completely understood shared burden of proof. It is generally harder to really prove a negative than it is to prove a positive. Nonetheless, I still look forward to a thought provoking debate and hope to tackle several issues. I will be arguing that people should not support BDS not just because it is unjust and perhaps even immoral, but the implications one gives to themselves by supporting them as well as the impact it has on the Palestinians.

I do not think I need to look too far with regards to sources for my opening arguments as I am mainly going to use BDS’s website as it is literally the best testimony to the flaws in the BDS. BDS begins by describing themselves “The global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights” [1]. Before I even argue from a moral perspective, let’s analyze this in terms of logic and effectiveness. In order for someone to be willing to support such a movement, the burden of proof would be on either Pro or the BDS movement to prove that boycotting private Israeli businesses that often don’t have to do with the government, as any impact whatsoever in Israelis policies towards the Palestinians. Otherwise, it would be harmful and I would argue unjust to deny people of several useful everyday products for a cause that perhaps won’t even help their own cause. The point I am trying to get it as that this is not only to be a debate of it BDS’s criticisms of Israel are correct or not, but also, and perhaps more significantly, if it is effective. This is especially true if they are asking for donations from people. Keep in mind that these boycotts are not just boycotting Israeli products but even products and companies that support Israel. I would like to provide some examples of products that a genuine Israeli boycott would result in. To name a few, McDonalds, HP, Intel, Motorola, Sabra (Which I must attest from personal experience would be a huge loss), SodaStream, Pampers, Victoria’s Secret, Volvo, [2]. There are many others that I might include in the following rounds but I find them as side details. The point is that there are many major products that the BDS movement tells people to boycott. Again, I want people to ask themselves if they would support a boycott if they know it is going to be ineffective to the cause? If the answer is no, perhaps you need not read any further than the evidence I am about to provide. BDS themselves concede that these boycotts for the most part are not effective and that is not even their goal! To quote them: “Trying to boycott the products of every single company that participates in Israeli apartheid is a daunting task that has a slim change of having a concrete impact” [3].

Now, there are a few things that can be gleaned from this statement. First of all, a small point is that as they are trying to convince people to boycott Israeli goods they are showing their incompetence by their lack of dedication to proofread their statements. I think it is fair to assume that they meant “a slim chance of having a concrete impact”. Their statement, then, confirms exactly what I said previously. By calling it a daunting task they validate what I was saying about the difficulties they are bringing to people. So it is clear that they realize it is not an easy thing to ask someone to do. But they are asking people to do it with clear knowledge that it won’t be effective! The point that I would like to get across is that it is clear that the boycott’s agenda, or at least undeniably the results of it, are not for helping the Palestinian people. Now here’s where my opinion comes in so of course everyone including Pro is free to disagree with it but this is what I conclude from this evidence. The agenda of the BDS along with its intentions is nothing more than Anti-Semitic. Again I proved that many of these products are just private businesses owner which happen to be Israeli. They are often not involved with the government at all. I proved as well that they don’t bring results to the Palestinians and that it is not even their goal. This accomplishes really only one goal pretty perfectly. It pisses off and can harm Jewish business owners. It deprives them from extra money which of course feeds into the stereotype of Jews being stingy and being controlling with money. This can definitely be accomplished effectively. This just gives a barrier for BDS to hide behind and I find it criminal that they use the actual struggles of the Palestinians which I definitely recognize for their own personal agenda of Jew hatred. They don’t care about the Palestinians. They just hide behind statements about them so they don’t be recognized as being blatantly Anti-Semitic. If one argues that they are an organization that cares about human rights I would like to challenge that. Why not then make a movement that criticizes all those that actually violate them? Take, for example, the Palestinian government themselves! They persecute Christians who live there on a regular basis [5]. Why don’t they perhaps condemn the TARGETED killing of a 13 year old girl just because she lived in what BDS would call “occupied territories” of Kiryat Arba [6]? Are terms like this by BDS not something that these terrorists would celebrate? It just gives terrorists more reasons to do such actions. If they had a genuine interest in human rights these would definitely be the appropriate actions.

Maybe one might suggest that they care about Palestinians in general and are just focusing on justice for them. This is also absurd. They make no references that I am aware of condemning the killing of Palestinians in Syria on a daily basis and on the very off-hand chance that they mentioned it, it is probably not on a fraction of a level that they condemn Israel. The fact is that there is literally no better place in the Middle East for Palestinians or Arabs then Israel. So, again, you are welcome to disagree that there are other motives for such an organization aside from age old Jew hatred but I just debunked every other rational for such an organization so at the very least, these challenges must be addressed.

I have already given a lot to read this round so we will analyze only one more of their statements from their introduction. They claim that “BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice” [1].

Now, even for those of you disagree with me and think that BDS’s agenda along with their intentions is a just one, I’d like you to at least be open to the fact that their strategy of recruiting people is unjust. What I mean is that they are to a certain extent demonizing those who do not support them. I think I gave at least fair reasons to not support them. According to them however I do not have a conscience. They imply that if you don’t agree with them or actively participate in their movement, you don’t quite have a conscience or at least not the one they have. A more important note. They contradict their previous statement! They conceded themselves that the boycott is not effective but here they are in their introduction telling people how impactful they will be on the Palestinians if they participate in this movement. This is a very sinister tactic, again, even if they are just cause with proper intentions.

Now my next argument is for those who care about the Palestinians and their well-being (Which I’m sure Pro does). 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 am therefore going to give a brief explanation of how BDS hurts the Palestinian economy and does remotely nothing to the Israeli economy. Take for example SodaStream. It was located in the West Bank and once these boycotts take place and the company loses their business, the Israelis are fine because all they do is move that business to the south. The Palestinians in the region, however, end up losing their jobs which actually paid them significantly more than the local wages. This also takes away the chances the Israelis and the Palestinians have for peace. Israelis and Palestinians are literally working together! And BDS essentially is responsible for removing this. How can one support such a thing? [4].


I look forward to the following rounds where I can dig into the specifics of Pro's arguments and he can do the same for mine. Many of the arguments presented are nevertheless applicable.

On to you Pro.




Sources:
1. https://bdsmovement.net...
2. http://www.csmonitor.com...
3. https://bdsmovement.net...
4. http://www.forbes.com...
5. https://www.opendoorsusa.org...
6. http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BrendanD19

Pro

Rebuttals
The 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. Ineffective
The 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 Immorality
The 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 Economy
The 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...
LaL36

Con

Thank you for your response.

I ask Pro and the voters for some sympathy this round because I couldn't properly analyze all of Pro's points about what BDS themselves claims because their site is under maintenance. Perhaps it is to fix the mistakes I pointed out. :)

I hope to address those points in the later rounds if neccessary.

I am a little confused as to what is so "illogical" or "farcical" of making the point that in order for someone to actively support a boycott, there should be proof that it is effective. This was merely my point. I didn't solely just shift the burden on you Pro. I'm sure you noticed that following that statement I gave many arguments why one should not support it. This was simply an opening point to my paragraph. Even if you isolate all my other points after it, I think it is still fair to make the argument that one should not support a boycott because there isn't evidence of it being effective. Additionally, I have to say that I am a little offended that Pro is willing to lecture me about the parameters of the debate when he is planning on abandoning it entirely. Didn't the parameters say 5 rounds Pro? Again, I completely understand the situation as I agreed with Pro and that Pro has his reasons but I didn't give such a response to him when he suggested that. I just request that we keep things in perspective and just analyze the actual points made instead of getting too caught up with petty points. That aside, onto the specifics:

South Africa

I understand that Pro was just using this to make the case for the effectiveness of BDS, but it is simply not being intellectually honest to compare Israel to racist South Africa who used brutal force to suppress people along racial lines within their country. I am appalled by such a comparison. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East where Arabs, and yes Palestinians, have a free and fair vote. It is absurd to single out and attack the one country in the Middle East where Arabs undeniably have it best in the region in terms of human rights. Israel is a diverse country with 1.1 Million Muslims, 130,000 Christians, and 100,000 Druze and each have equal voting rights. 14 seats in the Knesset are held by Arabs [1]. And of course all religions are welcome to pray at their holy sites in Jerusalem which I'd like to remind everyone was not the case under Arab rule.

Anti-Semitism


My main argument for this point was that BDS singles out the Jewish state as oppose to all the neighboring countries where treatment is exponentially worse. If one really cared about human rights they would boycott every nation in the Middle East except Israel. You could even ignore the countries but how about treatment from the Palestinian leader themselves! Pro simply proves my point by correctly pointing out that I "distract from the issues that BDS is focused on". It is very true that BDS along with many of their supporters consider the hanging of gays in neighboring countries as a "distraction" to their agenda along with the slaughtering of a 13 year old Jewish girl. Pro did not address the point from last round regarding this 13 year old girl. If Pro really wants to emphasize that BDS represents the Palestinians themselves, he of all people should be advocating that they rather demand reforms and condemn their own leaders. Pro seems to care more about the specifics of resolution 242 from 1967 then the recent slaughter of a 13 year old girl along with Palestinian leadership, Hamas, calling for the destruction of JEWS not only in Israel but JEWS worldwide [2]. This is what one implies when they support BDS that something as trivial as the specifcs of UN resolutions are the issue but people who actually advocate for genocide are not.

Pro argues that BDS represents the Palestinian people. Does Pro actually believe that the Palestinian people for the most part are not Anti-Semitic? This would be a delusional and false claim. It was found that actually 93% of Palestinians hold Anti-Semitic beliefs. [3]

Even if one wants to ignore all the evidence given and still believe that BDS is not Anti-semitic, one should at least acknowledge that they will be associated with Anti-Semites who support it. One of the main groups that advocate for BDS is Students for Justice in Palestine. They are responsible for "funding organizations being staffed by people formerly working to fund Hamas" [4]. It is clear they have had associations with Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood. The founder, Hatem Bazian, headed the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Muslim Student Association while studying at Berkeley [5]. And this man is Palestinian as well so as Pro insists that BDS represents Palestinians it really hurts his case. 79 of their members disrupted a holocaust remembrance day and were arrested. Bazian then went on to say "take a look at the type of names on the building around campus — Haas, Zellerbach — and decide who controls this university" [5].

At this point it should be a foregone conclusion that at the very least BDS is heavily associated with Anti-Semites.

I want to bring up the point I made last round that Pro had a problem with. BDS claims that: “BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice”. It was a rather minor point but I was pointing out the absurdity of this statement. I was showing last round and this round how prevalent human rights violations are in Palestinian territories along with other countries within the region and BDS is coming to tell people that they have a conscience for condemning the one country that Arabs have it best in the region. And yes I think the point still stands. Pro is perhaps correct that they are not explicitly saying I don't have a conscience but there is definitely at least the implication that I don't have the conscience that they have as I said last round.

Palestinian Economy

I gave clear evidence last round that the boycott harms the Palestinian Economy. Pro doesn't dispute the evidence but rather blames Israel and the occupation. While clearly ignoring the reasons behind the occupation, Pro is essentially making a preposterous case that one should harm the Palestinian economy in order to help the Palestinian economy in the future. I also gave evidence that the effects of BDS detract from peace between the Israelis and Palestinians because it stopped them from doing business together in addition to taking away Palestinian jobs and preventing them from getting them in the future. A real peaceful organization would encourage the two to work together and BDS is advocating or at least having an impact on the opposite.

I look forward to your response.

Sources:

1. http://www.americanthinker.com......

2. http://www.inquisitr.com...

3. http://www.timesofisrael.com...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org...

5. http://www.foxnews.com...

Debate Round No. 3
BrendanD19

Pro

Contention 1: International Law and Human Rights
The Con has failed to respond to this contention and thus we can assume it has been conceded.

Contention 2: South Africa
In 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 success
The Con has failed to respond to this contention and thus we can assume it has been conceded.

Anti-Semitism Rebuttal
The 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 Economy
The 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...
LaL36

Con

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.

Debate Round No. 4
BrendanD19

Pro

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 Africa
The 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 success
The 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-Semitism
The 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 Economy
The 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.

Conclusion
In 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


Sources
1. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo...
2. http://www.jcpa.org...
3. https://bdsmovement.net...

LaL36

Con

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...

Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
"At the end of this debate, I can only see a full 7 point vote for the Pro."

I do not see a possible way to justify all 7-points going to one side.
Posted by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
My RFD is here: https://docs.google.com...

I'm still working on it and so I am just saving the link.
Posted by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
Will vote on this tonight
Posted by LaL36 10 months ago
LaL36
Ya go for it
Posted by BrendanD19 10 months ago
BrendanD19
Hey can I send you a message
Posted by LaL36 10 months ago
LaL36
Hey guys here are the sources for round 4. I'm sorry I ran out of space. For the second source I mistyped and put a 3 but it is obviously the second source.

1. http://www.haaretz.com...

2. http://www.tabletmag.com...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

4. http://www.theblaze.com...

5. http://www.israeltoday.co.il...

6. http://www.pbs.org...

7. http://www.thetower.org...
Posted by LaL36 10 months ago
LaL36
Excellent! Great to hear. Congrats on the computer.
Posted by BrendanD19 10 months ago
BrendanD19
Hey I just got a new laptop and I can continue the debate while I am away!
Posted by LaL36 10 months ago
LaL36
No problem.
Posted by BrendanD19 10 months ago
BrendanD19
I'd rather do a full debate.
I have about a week until I have to go, so lets just see how far we get before then.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
BrendanD19LaL36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Note that I am still working on some minor tweaks and typing up my analysis for the International law contention, but overall I believe that my RFD meets the voting standards as it stands. If you have any questions, please contact me. RFD here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBTl4nlxOwjBh7z3pAeSqGWuB-urpW-lwvPcNEwWp0U/edit?usp=sharing