I was browsing through a website today when I came across an article titled, “Israel has the right to defend itself”, and although most of the world has heard President Bush reiterate this statement during the Israeli–Lebanese war, it suddenly struck me how this line has become repeated gospel to every Christian Zionist, republican, and those still convinced and angry nineteen Arabs hijacked four flights on September 11, 2001. Out of the blue the alarm bells went off and the thought hit me squarely between the eyes: “this is propaganda….this is a fallacious argument!”
Soberly I sunk into my chair, realizing this simple statement had slipped under my radar screen all this time. I flashed back to my rhetoric and logic class in college when one of my assignments was to watch TV commercials and collect newspaper clippings, searching for examples I had been oblivious to.
If one spends a minute thinking about President Bush's statement (“Israel has the right to defend itself”), the straw man fallacy frames it perfectly. For instance:
- There used to be a commercial on TV for Excedrin brand, with a sales pitch of, “do you need a pain reliever that works?” If you've been run over by a car, chances are you're not going to go to the drug store, stand in front of the shelves of medicine and think, “I want a pain reliever that doesn't work!” No, you're going to be screaming for all the over the counter morphine they've got.
- Several years ago, the Senate democrats used scare tactics to get people to vote for them: “The republicans are cutting school lunches out for poor children! They are poisoning our water system and polluting our air! They want us all to die!” People initially fell for this argument, but later out of anger from having been duped by their inability to spot this false argument, overwhelmingly handed the Congress over to the republican party. It's true – republicans have to breathe air and drink water, too.
- President Bush's entire “war on terror” is build around various fallacies: “Either you're with us or against us.” (Forces someone into a fight that's not his or hers to begin with – the bandwagon or guilt by association fallacies) “If you're protesting against the war, then you're unpatriotic!” (This attempts to use shame as a tool to bypass a Constitutionally guaranteed right and borders on the no true Scotsman fallacy .) “A vote for Ned Lamont is a vote for Osama Bin Laden!” (This pits fear against patriotism, which is like comparing apples and oranges – appeal to consequences fallacy .) “If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to fear the passage of the Patriot Act.” (Uses guilt as a tool to bypass a Constitutionally guaranteed right – emotional appeal fallacy or the appeal from authority fallacy .)
Israel does have the right to defend itself, but there are two problems with this argument:
- The argument assumes the aggression was perpetrated against Israel first and therefore on the defense, which she was not – Israel was on the offensive in Lebanon (and in the occupied West Bank), based on several articles: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]
- If you disagree with the statement, then you are implying through the unspoken word, you prefer Israel to be defenseless, which would eventually lead to its destruction (and a potential second fallacy called a slippery slope injected into the argument).
The next major fallacy that disqualifies Israel's action in the Lebanese war is the Tu Quoque (“you too”) argument, in which one attempts to justify their actions based on the other party's actions:
- “I know I shouldn't have eaten cookies for breakfast, but I saw you eating them, too , so I figured it was ok.”
- “I wasn't speeding, Officer. I was only going as fast as you were on the road, so that means in order to have caught me, you were speeding, too .”
- “As long as your Katyusha rockets continue to rain down on us here in Israel, we will continue to bomb you, too !”
I'll end with one last example that employs multiple fallacies Christian Zionists are using to justify their undying support of Israel. Genesis 12:3 ” And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. ” American Christians cling to this verse like thin plastic wrap for many reasons:
• “This is the Word of God, His promise, and we must obey them at all costs!” That's true, it is His Word, but the covenant was specifically made with Abraham. Can I say with complete certainty it does not apply to Christians? No. In my opinion, I feel this piece of scripture has been misinterpreted and hijacked by two camps: “ the gospel of prosperity ”, and to bring Christians under subjugation of the religious republican political action committees.
• I believe the fallacies and desires in this are:
• Playing upon the fear of God – emotional fallacy.
• Playing upon the desire for blessings – greed.
• Abusing one's position as a religious leader to influence the church to subscribe to a single point of view – appeal from authority.
• “You don't want to be left behind when Jesus returns, so you better get on the bandwagon (fallacy)!” – as well as the emotional and appeal from authority fallacies.
The Bible tells me to love my neighbor, and that includes not only Israel, but the Arab states as well. I make no distinction between my love for either group, but when I hear a lie, I'm going to call it a lie no matter who's mouth it comes out of.
"Therefore putting away lying, let each man speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another." Ephesians 4:25
It may not be polite in this political and religious climate to run such logic up the flagpole as I'm apt to be accused of anti-Semitism, but the truth remains unchangeable as it always comes to the surface sooner or later. Ask any politician who desperately tried to hide a scandal, only to have a reporter “out” them in the end!
