Flawed Arguments (All) טיעונים פגומים

---

"When Israel defenders use flawed arguments it damages Israel's credibility and puts into question claims of rape, torture, mutilation."

Champion of Humanitarian Aid Argument

Israel is the champion of humanitarian aid to Gaza. If they could, they would come and bring fresh hummus to all of them. And what are they forgetting? They're forgetting when the war started, what was Israel's plan? Israel's plan was to siege Gaza, to turn off the water, to turn off the gas.

Now, if that's your strategic plan and you want to go with it, fine. There are benefits, there are drawbacks, absolutely. Could it motivate the population to rebel? Could it motivate the ouster of Hamas? Could it motivate people to... There are arguments to be made, but that's not the point here.

The point is, if you start off your war by starving the people and doing a modern-day siege of water and gas, you cannot come back and claim that you are the hero of humanitarian aid. It's disingenuous. It backfires. You lose all credibility.

And then when you start to show and claim that Hamas did this and Hamas did that, don't wonder why people don't listen to you. Don't wonder why people question your credibility. So when you say, Hamas raped and they kidnapped and they mutilated, and they'll say, well, you're lying. Look what you did with the aid. You claim this and didn't do it.

Don't forget, the young American public in universities, in the famous AOC video where she can't even answer a thing about Israel, you're talking to an ignorant population. They don't know. They don't know what's going on. They can't find anywhere on a map. They probably can't find the Ukraine. They can't find Israel. They can't find Gaza on a map. So they're susceptible to being manipulated.

So when you, Israel, go out publicly and make these blunders, these easily correctable, easily fixable, easily telegraphed mistakes that you're claiming to be the hero of humanitarian aid when two months you said the opposite, they have, they, the other side will have smart leaders. Hamas will have smart leaders and they will manipulate this and they will show you to be deceptive and you will lose public support.

At War wit Hamas Only Argument

Our next flawed argument is that which says, Israel is at war with Hamas, not with people of Gaza. Israel predates Hamas. Hamas was created to fight Israel. So if your argument, Israel, is that you're only trying to defeat Hamas, then the obvious question will be, what about pre-Hamas? Why was there no peace with the "peace-loving" Palestinians then? Therefore, Israel must be the obstacle. Israel doesn't want the two-state solution.

Most Israelis are surprised that the West and even Netanyahu have harped on this narrative, this Hamas narrative. Now, if we go back to May of 2023, May of 2023, okay, May, June, July, August, September, October, six months. If we go back only to May, PIJ shot over the course of four days, 1,500 rockets at Israel. That's hundreds of rockets a day. Israel asked Hamas not to get involved.

And in return, Israel did not target the Hamas rocket launchers, which obviously are aimed at Israel nonetheless. But Israel did not target the rocket launchers. Israel then praised Hamas's restraint. And Israel assessed from this, and this did not age well, Israel assessed from this that because Hamas did not get involved in May, therefore, Hamas is not interested and was not interested in escalating the conflict. It was sufficiently deterred. It did not want to get involved.

To say that this was by design, it's probably giving Hamas too much credit. But we have to remember, this is a very savvy enemy. They have, Hamas has, PIJ for that matter, in Gaza, they have zero tanks, zero airplanes, zero helicopters. And they're facing the fourth strongest army in the world. That's at least according to US news and world reports. And they have been able to do this for half a year now, using international pressure and of course, the hostages.

Hamas has no offensive capabilities. All they have are the rockets. These rockets, which are a medieval technology. They have no propulsion to drive them, no guidance to aim them, and no warhead to explode. Now, there was one picture, there's several pictures, but one picture that was particularly notable, where a Hamas rocket had hit a building in the south. It hit maybe the second floor, let's say. And the window, just below where the rocket hit, the flowers did not burn, the flowers, the flowerpot did not move.

So it tells us, the technology, the rockets, they are throwing hot metal. And this group, these groups are now negotiating publicly in the world, are holding their own for six months against the fourth strongest army in the world.

There's no Hamasville, there's no island that sits off the coast of Gaza. There is PIJ, there is Fatah, there are the Al-Aqsa martyrs, there's ISIS, there's the Muslim Brotherhood. So the idea that Hamas has come in and conquered Gaza, which is the idea that's being used in the West, in the narrative by the United States, is a logic trap, as we discussed above. Heading right into the two-state solution.

But the reality is, it's a complete fallacy. Atrocities in Gaza, in Israel, in Palestine, date back well before the state. They date back to the Balfour Declaration, to the Hebron massacres in 1929. The difference here, this time, is not necessarily in the atrocities. It's in the GoPros, it's in the social media.

But the point is, before there was Hamas, and after Hamas, there are different groups, and they have different acronyms, and there's a different alphabet soup that they use. The electoral support in Gaza for Hamas is well documented. It's documented in the voting booths. It's documented in their textbooks. It's documented in the streets, in their reaction.

And it's documented by the fact that six months into the war, six months into Israel bombarding Gaza, and there is no uprising, any other group, any other place, should say, "get these hostages out of here, get Hamas out of here, they are causing tremendous destruction, whether directly, indirectly. Get them out."

But the point is, the people support them. The people agree. So why does the West harp on this idea that everyone in Gaza is peace-loving, but for Hamas, we would have the ability, the route to a two-state solution? But for Israel, we would go right through to a two-state solution.

And the problem is, as we know, the ignorant Westerner projects his own values, and he thinks every problem could be solved with a new iPhone, and a new Tesla, and that it's an economic issue. But it's not.

It's a religious conflict. Now, this includes Israelis, Israeli leadership. Gantz, for example, work-permit-Gantz, also believes that the more work permits he gives, the more likelihood he can have peace and quiet. Again, it's misunderstanding the problem. It's putting a band-aid on a headache. It doesn't make any sense.

Now, worse is that these concessions are seen as offensive by the Palestinians. The Palestinians believe their land has been stolen. They've been taught that for generations.

Now, imagine if I steal your car, and then I say to you, you know what, I'm going to let you borrow this car once a week. And even worse, I'm going to tell everyone, look how nice I am. Look how generous I am, because I'm lending you my car.

Now, I'm not saying right or wrong in terms of the arguments, but I want for Israeli leaders to understand how this is perceived worldwide. This is how it looks.

Liberate Palestinians from Hamas Argument

There's a similar offshoot to this argument, and it says this. It's a beauty. It says Israel is fighting to liberate the Palestinians from Hamas. Now, I've heard this one in the media as well.

So the Palestinians and the West, many of whom believe at this point, that Israel is a bunch of baby killers. They're committing genocide. They are apartheid. And now Israel is arguing to them. Yes, but all of this is for you. I am trying to liberate you. I am doing it all out of the goodness of my heart, because I care about you and want you to be free.

Overall, we have to drop these flawed arguments. We, Israel, have to drop these awful arguments. They damage Israel's credibility. They're disingenuous. They're seen that way by the entire world.

The truth is, the response to October 7th doesn't require a tricky justification. Israel was attacked. It had been attacked in the past, and it will be continued to be attacked in the future unless it acts. Period.

USA, You Did it First Argument

But let's continue on the topic of flawed arguments. Because there are, unfortunately for Israel, a whole bunch of them, and we haven't even gotten through half of them.

The next one is the, well, you did it first argument. What does that mean? You see a lot of Israeli defenders. A former prime minister the other day was on TV, said it. And it goes like this:

You, United States, or sometimes you, Europe, usually you, United States, you were responsible for Hiroshima. You were responsible for the Gulf War, for Afghanistan. You were responsible for carpet bombs, collateral damage. You, United States, you did all these things. So therefore, when Israel does a lot less, you, United States, can't say anything. It's hypocritical.

The point here is obviously to show that there's a double standard. But where's the flaw? Is when you go and you speak to CNN, and you speak to MSNBC, and Bernie Sanders, and the average American university student, and you tell them what the United States did in World War II, in Vietnam, in Iraq, their answer is, "Yes, that was terrible. What the United States did then was terrible. And what you're doing now is terrible."

So instead of showing the double standard, what Israel, the Israeli speakers, representatives are actually doing, is reinforcing the argument of the leftist Americans, of the Westerners, of those who say that Israel in the wrong, because they completely agree the United States was in the wrong previously in those cases.

What they fail to understand, the speakers, the pundits, is that there's no continuity in the United States, as there used to be. So an American today is not responsible for what happened previously.

We're talking about a new America, an America that views its own past with as much disdain as it views Israel. Don't forget the burning of the US flags, the changing of the national anthem, the removal of historical statues, the changing of the names of donors on buildings.

Now, Israel makes the same mistake policy-wise. They assume there's some kind of continuity. And why? Because the United States for probably over 100 years, from the time of, let's say, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, World War I, up until the Bushes and Clinton, there was an idea of US dominance in the world, striving to attain and maintain US dominance. And that is over. That is finished.

Biden may hold some of that sense of responsibility, but the United States is entering very different times. So you say, okay, Ariel, very nice history lesson.

So here it is. Here's a short point. Is that when we, when Israelis argue using the past history of the United States as a point, as a point of contention, as a point of argument, it's a dead end. It only reinforces the opposing argument. Many Americans don't feel obligated to defend their past. They're actually against it themselves.

Seacoast Property Argument

And one mini argument that we could tap on, because I've only heard this used a couple of times, is look how beautiful the land in Gaza is. Look at this seacoast property. Look how wonderful it is.

They're accusing you of genocide. They're accusing you of killing babies. They're accusing you of being apartheid. And your answer is, well, you didn't sufficiently use the land to a way that I would like it.

We don't even need to start. That's, that's easy.

Cannot Reward Terror Argument

Moving on. Our next flawed argument is the one that says the Palestinians cannot be rewarded a state. We cannot move forward with a two-state solution now because it rewards terror.

Now, the logic behind this, obviously, is we're setting a moral standard, setting a precedent. It's kind of something we would do with a child.

What's the flaw? The flaw is saying we can't give it to you now out of principle. But it does not say that you don't deserve it. That you don't have a right to it. And once you say that you have a right to it, that means you also had a right to it yesterday. Yesterday being pre-October 7th.

So now what we've done with this logic is we've turned the massacres of October 7th into a freedom fight. Because they are fighting for something that they are due. Land that has been stolen in their minds. So now all of a sudden they are freedom fighters.

And this argument walks right into the idea that anything is justified. Any resistance is justified. Because they have lost what was due to them.

Islamic Extremism is Coming to You Argument

Our next flawed argument is the one that says Islamic extremism is coming to you, West. To you, America. To you, Europe, that our Israeli speakers will use. Now this is one of the worst ones.

Because just imagine the perspective of the listener who is our typical Westerner. Maybe our university student. And they're hearing this. Or they're thinking this.

You, Israel, are killing babies. You, Israel, are attacking civilians. And the Israeli comes on TV and says, yes, but I'm doing it on your behalf. So you should actually thank me. Thank me for doing this. Send me a little piece of chocolate with each bullet.

They think you're racist. They think you're baby killers. And you're telling them that you're doing it on their behalf.

All right, so that's, first of all, the obnoxious, condescending element of that argument. But beyond that, Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, other groups, they exist with one goal in mind. And that is to destroy Israel.

So the idea that these groups are spreading out throughout the world, are going to incentivize and motivate others around the world, is not going to fly against the listener.

Moreover, Islamic extremism is not new. And it's not only in Israel. It exists in Russia, as we saw recently, China, the rest of the West. It has existed for many centuries. It peaked with the British in the Middle East, with the Russians in Afghanistan, with ISIS, with Bin Laden against the West. It has come. It has peaked. It has waned. To start to explain that Israel is some savior on their behalf, won't work.

So Mr. Israeli speaker, stick to the basics. You're fighting a war because you were attacked. You're at war. You cannot live successfully or peacefully in your land unless you deal with this enemy. The enemy preaches to kill and has killed for generations because they cannot accept that the war of their grandparents and great-grandparents is over. That's sufficient. Don't be a mercenary.

Flawed Arguments Intro

We had some feedback asking what does F-L-A-W stand for? It's a flaw. It's a word. It's not an acronym, although you probably don't know what that is anyway.

So the point of the talks were that there are flaws, problems in the argument. What's a flaw? It's an inherent... What, they won't know what that word is either? So here's how we tell if our argument is problematic.

Imagine our liberal Jewish American and they're sitting in their apartment in Los Angeles and Bibi comes on TV and says, no one has given foreign aid like we have. And what did they start screaming? What did she say? Harvey, they didn't give aid. They wanted to starve them. That's a problematic argument.

Or imagine your liberal American suburban family sitting and watching as Bennett comes on TV and says to MSNBC, to CNN and says, well, you United States in World War II, you in Hiroshima, you in Vietnam. And meanwhile, what is the listener thinking? Well, I protested Vietnam, so I don't really like it anyway. That's a problematic argument.

Or imagine AOC is sitting in her fancy Manhattan apartment, turns on the TV and the IDF general comes on and says, we are going to liberate the Palestinians from Hamas. And AOC looks and says, Free Pakis--tine. That's a problematic argument.

So now that we have an understanding of what a flawed argument is, what a problematic argument is, we could get into some substance and some of the details.

Because when Israeli leaders, when the generals, when the politicians, even when some defenders on Twitter throw out some of these arguments and they are flawed, it damages Israel's credibility. It makes it seem disingenuous.

And then everyone questions every other claim, including claims of rape, claims of torture, claims of mutilation. So it's not just simply we should laugh at these jokes. These are problems. And let's get into it.