Reply #19: You should stick to the vague logical fallacy arguments and stay away from the specifics.

[shira]

In this case, the main argument is that "Demonizing (again with that word!) Israel Harms Palestinians." Nowhere in the article is this claim actually supported. Rather, the bulk of the article is apologetics for Israel formed out of logical fallacies. You have the special pleading (Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups because it's israel), you have Two Wrongs Make a Right (Jordan was mean to its Palestinians, so it's okay if Israel is mean to Palestinians, too), you have Passing the Buck (It's not Israel's fault for fuccking over the Palestinians, it's the media's fault for reporting it!), and of course, the time-honored Ad Hominem (If you disagree with Israel, then you must be an antisemite, and are comparable to Saddam Hussein!

1. Demonization, to put it simply, is irrational criticism. When Israel is criticized for anything they do in self-defense without offering a reasonable and practical alternative that's irrational criticism. When Israel is accused of murdering innocent Turkish humanitarians and the context is deliberately left out - like the fact they were warmongering thugs looking for a fight - that's irrational criticism. When civilians are killed in a war and the fact that they were deliberately and cynically used as human shields by the enemy is left out of the context in order to give the impression that Israel had ill intent, that's irrational criticism (especially given Colonel Kemp's testimony that Israel did more to protect civilians than any other military in the history of warfare). Making Israelis or their Jewish supporters out to be bloodthirsty, racist supremacist supporters of colonialism is irrational criticism. So are the accusations of Jews/Israel in control of foreign governments and media. Or accusing Jews of profitting from the Holocaust and using it as a reason to oppress Palestinians (who are the new Jews to be pitied, as Jews today deserve none due to the actions of their state). Then there's the comparison of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis or the SA apartheid regime. Or downplaying rockets as "firecrackers", accusations of genocide, starving the population, false accusations of bombing a UN school building, the Jenin Massacre, Muhammad al-Dura, and all arguments that mirror the views of Pat Buchanon or David Duke. Now that you know what demonization is, let's move on to the rest of what you wrote....

2. As to your charges of "special pleading, 2 wrongs make a right, passing the buck, and ad-hominem", those are all strawman arguments that misrepresent - probably deliberately - your opponent's position(s).

No one argues Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups. Or that because others are bad, Israel can be too. That it's the media's fault for reporting Israel's wrongdoing. Or that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Rather than misrepresent your opponents views, why not simply ask - or at worst - demand clarification? :shrug:

Israel does screw up and like any other nation in the world, it deserves criticism. But are their screwups blown way out of proportion, taken out of context, or often exaggerated? There's no question that's the case. Why the disproportionate focus on Israel - or the double standards? Why the hypocrisy? For comparable actions, are other Western democratic nations held to the same standard. Of course not - Israel is held to a "higher" standard than the USA and UK, not to mention a higher standard than any of the countries surrounding them. If the Palestinians' best interests are the main concern of those who condemn Israel the most, then why the silence WRT Palestinian suffering due to the actions of Arab leadership? Why the need for all this irrational criticism if Israel is so beyond the pale? Why the need to exaggerate or lie by omission? Why go well beyond legitimate and measured criticism?