The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines sophistry as:
subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
I don't think this particular example is all that subtle but I do think it qualifies as sophistry.
Michael Ignatieff has an op-ed in today's National Post in which he registers his disapproval of Israel Apartheid Week, a recent CUPE resolution and the larger movement in favour of boycotts and divestments that are intended to pressure Israel into changing its policies regarding the occupied territories. If you're thinking that Ignatieff's long background as an academic specializing in human rights means that you can expect a reasoned and detailed argument designed to make people actually rethink their positions, you'll be disappointed. Strip away the rhetoric and this looks like nothing so much as another attempt to simply shut people up. The critical part of Ignatieff's argument, such as it is, is this:
International law defines "apartheid" as a crime against humanity. Labelling Israel as an "apartheid" state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.
No, it's not. And there's nothing in the article that provides any further argument in support of that assertion than the assertion itself. But the entire op-ed piece really turns on this premise. Iggy gives us the usual disclaimer:
Criticism of Israel is legitimate.
But whenever you see that disclaimer in articles like this, it's accompanied by some bit of rhetoric designed to explain why the particular criticism of Israel at hand crosses some line and becomes illegitimate. Even if the line that's crossed was just made up out of whole cloth.
When the practice of apartheid in South Africa was attacked, was it a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the South African state itself? I'd have to say no because apartheid in South Africa ended and yet the state itself continues to exist. (And incidentally, when the movement to oppose apartheid was gaining traction, I don't recall a lot of attention being paid to the possibility that criticism of South Africa was illegitimate unless every other human rights abuse in the world was addressed simultaneously.)
Ignatieff knows the difference between a sound argument and a fallacy. But he appears to have no problem peddling a thoroughly unsound argument in an effort to intimidate people into silence with what amounts to just another veiled accusation of anti-semitism instead of confronting people's arguments honestly.
Since Ignatieff came back to Canada and began his career in politics he's done exactly one thing that could be described as courageous when he suggested that some of Israel's actions in Lebanon in 2006 would qualify as war crimes. And the moment he realized it might have been a courageous thing to say, he walked it back and he's been apologizing for it ever since.
His Igginess could have used some learnin' in logic. If he did take logic courses, then clearly he failed them.
Hey there, Mister pogge, I had to go and edit my latest post to add a link to this most excellent post of yours. Great minds think alike. Or, we both read skdadl...
I saw skdadl's comment. But I'd read Ignatieff's piece earlier (it's been linked at National Newswatch all day) and the first thing I thought of when I read it was South Africa. I'm old enough to remember the campaign against apartheid very well. I can still give myself an earworm with a tune that included the lyric: we ain't gonna play Sun City.
His Igginess could have used some learnin' in logic.
I'm not prepared to give him even that much benefit of the doubt. He knows damn well what's he done here. Notice that it's in the National Post. This is designed to reach a particular audience.
Ignatieff cannot brook any criticism of Israel. He completely absolved Israel of all responsibility for its brutal assault on Gaza. He completely ignores recent remarks by Netanyahu, Liberman and even Livni advocating the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from their historic homeland. He ignores the growing (430,000 illegal settlers and counting) occupation of the West Bank and the wholly illegal theft of Palestinian water resources.
Ignatieff would be comfortable in the company of uber-Republican, Born Again Rapture freaks who drool at the prospect of the rebirth of the biblical land of Israel.
The guy is no Liberal. He's a rank neo-conservative who has managed to insinuate himself into the Liberal Party of Canada.
The whole thing falls apart on that leap of logic, that anyone is trying to undermine the legitimacy of the state itself.
When we opposed apartheid in South Africa, we were not opposing the legitimacy of the state itself.
Not that Iggy is going to care that we can point that out, o' course. Man, is the oligarchy getting disgusting or what?
It frustrates me to no end that no one is quite as apt at tearing down Liberal candidates than supposed liberals themselves. By attempting to sabotage Ignatief in the same way that Dion was never given a fair shot, we're all ensuring that Stephen Harper will remain our Prime Minister for a long, long time.
As a non-Jewish progressive atheist, let me state that many of Israel's actions and policies over the last--well, how far back do you want to go?--have bothered me. Then again, it's perhaps the most complicated conflict and region in the entire world, and no one is blameless. I also recognize the harsh position Israel is in, and can respect--as someone not entirely ignorant of history--that it was never a one-sided situation. I can appreciate, for example, that Israelis were often simply defending themselves (before the creation of the state of Israel -- or more accurately, the return of the state of Israel) until backed into a corner and, surprise, surprise, the claws came out. I am also aware that Israel has made countless concessions and attempts toward peace--including pulling out of the Gaza Strip entirely, a couple of summers ago--which were met with increased attacks and rocket fire. Is it any wonder that the Israeli people aren't so keen on making themselves vulnerable to satiate the moral outrage of those who are silent so long as the bombs are only falling on Israel?
Again, I have many problems with Israel, but I say all of this only to offer contrast with assumptions many often make when it comes to Israel -- and finally, to make this point: You can disagree with me, and you can disagree with Ignatief. That's perfectly normal. But why do I see so many supposedly-progressive blogs lining up to call him a hypocrite, a failure, an opportunist, and so on and so forth? You can't disagree with someone without delving right into the ad hominems? I am referring to the front page of Progessivebloggers.ca, which might as well be a right-wing propaganda-rag with the way in which its contributors are smearing the crap out of our best chance at taking down Harper.
As an aside, as someone who frequents many different news sites and blogs, I almost never come across anyone criticizing Palestine or Palestinians. I do, however, always seem to find scathing, one-sided criticism of Israel with the defensive, typical disclaimer of 'Oh, they're just going to call us anti-Semitic!' plastered at the beginning of the rant. And it might be useful also to reflect on the surprising amount of anti-Semitism you do find amongst allegedly-progressive bloggers -- because there is a lot. But then again, to do so would be to acknowledge that things are more complicated than Right and Wrong, and that people like Ignatief are not necessarily monsters for having a different take on Israel than the usual teamsters.
"International law defines "apartheid" as a crime against humanity. Labelling Israel as an "apartheid" state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself."
I like this logic and shall use it if I am ever accused of a crime myself:
"Your Honour, the Criminal Code defines 'theft' as a crime. Labelling me a thief is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of my existence. Therefore, I am not guilty."
By attempting to sabotage Ignatief in the same way that Dion was never given a fair shot, we're all ensuring that Stephen Harper will remain our Prime Minister for a long, long time.
And by sitting on our hands and saying nothing while those on the other side of the issues continue to pressure relentlessly for their point of view, we ensure that ambitious politicians like Ignatieff will slide to the right until there really is no difference between the devil we know and the alternative. If we want politicians to do what we think is right, we have to let them know that the support for them is out there.
What you've provided here looks like just one more argument intended to get Israel's critics to shut up. It's as hollow as all the others.
As for this:
it might be useful also to reflect on the surprising amount of anti-Semitism you do find amongst allegedly-progressive bloggers
Here we go again. Another accusation of anti-semitism against a large, poorly defined group of unnamed people without any evidence in support of it. Don't bring that shit in here.
Stop the Presses!!!
Ignatief wants to be PM.
All Iggy is doing is eyeing a slice of the demographic pie. That is all. It's what politicians do.
The really odd thing is how and why did Isreal become an issue in Canadian electorial politics?
Why has it become such a definitive touchstone?
It's weird. It's not like Isreal is very important to the Canadian national interest, at least in my mind.
All Iggy is doing is eyeing a slice of the demographic pie. That is all. It's what politicians do.
All I'm doing is criticizing a politician for dishonesty in the service of pandering for votes. That is all. It's what bloggers do.
The issue itself was pushed back onto the front burner by Israel's recent attack on Gaza. It was a slaughter and it's evidence that what many of us already regard as injustice in the occupied territories is only getting worse.
And the position of Harper's government on Israel is indicative of, and only a part of, a serious change in direction for Canadian foreign policy that's been underway for some years and is only being reinforced by Ignatieff's actions here. Why shouldn't that be a concern?
As I said at my place when Ignatieff's comments were brought up.
Ignatieff is begging the question - stating something as a given which needs to be proved. It is a form of fallacious argument.
Ignatieff knows this.
I'm with you, pogge. Tweedledee or Tweedledum, ya gotta tag 'em when they are off base.
The MSM won't do it, so it is left to the bloggers to hold their feet to the fire.
People who say that calling Israel an apartheid state is anti-semitic are making a case similar to that of calling then-South Africa an apartheid state was racist.
And no we don't need to get rid of Harper just to be replaced by Iggy who is neocon lite and just more of the same stuff. We've been down this road before with the libs - where they are the great pretenders of progressiveness - not.
I want to see lots of New Democrats elected - ensure a minority govt until we can get PP and/or coalition govts.
Treating Iggy as "the 2nd coming" sure, the devil reincarnate.
I am merely making an observation, pogge. Whether or not you choose to believe it, I have been called every name in the book when it comes to derogatory terms for liberals and progressives, and I have yet to see anything more than a peep of criticism toward Palestine -- if that. And I've seen a truckload of anti-Semitism as well, so yes, I can definitely empathize with those fearing anti-Semitic backlash for having the audacity to even suggest that perhaps Israel isn't an Evil state that is oppressing the Poor and Innocent Palestinians. I am not accusing you of being anti-Semitic, so there is no need to be defensive -- especially since it really just illustrates another point I made above.
Secondly, your belief doesn't stand in stark contrast with my own observations about Ignatief critics. We both know that you can criticize someone, and even take a firm stance against something they believe in, without viciously and personally attacking that person. Yes, it is important to hold elected leaders to certain standards; it's also important to live in reality instead of demanding a politician to act in a way that will force him to lose an election so that someone who is far worse for this country can continue to rape it of what made it great. This is why it bugs me so much that I see so much merciless, one-sided and oft-melodramatic kvetching from left-wing bloggers who seem to miss the bigger picture. And you will have to forgive me, because I was mostly offering a general rant that didn't have much to do with your blog specifically other than it was the last one in a long line that I had read portraying Ignatief as a complete disaster and immediate failure as a leader of the Liberal party. I may not have made that entirely clear.
Love them or hate them, at the end of the day conservatives will bite their tongues and rally around their elected leader and help him win. Liberals are not nearly so organized, unfortunately.
We both know that you can criticize someone, and even take a firm stance against something they believe in, without viciously and personally attacking that person.
But later in your comment you acknowledge that much of what you wrote in your original post was in reaction to others. So go yell at them. I have no idea who else you've read today or what they wrote. Why raise the issue of anti-semitism with me if you don't believe I'm guilty of it? Why repeat the talk about "vicious and personal" attacks unless you believe I'm guilty of one? (In which case, give me a quote.)
The whole point of articles like Ignatieff's is not to reason with people but to get them to just shut up. And then you come along to lay a boatload of somebody else's transgressions at my feet while explaining why I should just shut up. Why would you expect a reception that's any different than the one you got?
Many of us on the left did look at the bigger issue, defeating Harper, during the last election. Many went out on a limb to protect Dion from the bashing he received as well as support such campaigns as Anybody But Conservative in the voting polls. And you know what, that good will from the progressive left was pissed on by the LPC itself by torpedoing Dion and a possibility of a coalition government.
I will not say a kind word about Ignatieff because he doesn't deserve it. I will continue to despise Harper as well. They are basically similarly vapid about how our government works and beholden to US interests. The only difference between the two may be on some extreme social conservative issues that Harper has managed to keep at bay.
As for apartheid Israel and South Africa, the elephant in the room is demographics. The Afrikaners are very much like the western Jewish Israelis. In South Africa, they were the implanted minority who had been ruling since the 17th century - European settlers who basically took resources and powers from the indigenous population. They ruthlessly kept the indigenous black tribes under their heel. The transposed western Israelis are also a minority who have resources and power to keep the indigenous populations under control. Even Sephardic Jews who were already there were treated with disdain.
Right of return as well as empowerment of Israeli Arabs is a demographic threat to the transposed, settler rulers. The thought of Israel eventually becoming ruled by an Arab majority is threatening. That would be the end of the dream of having a Jewish State. The two state solution is built on that fear of having to submit to losing that status.
that good will from the progressive left was pissed on by the LPC itself
It was pissed on during the campaign when Bob Rae started working ridings that were held by NDP incumbents instead of campaigning in Conservative ridings. There's nothing wrong with that when everyone's playing by the same rules. But when Liberals claim they should be immune from attacks from the left because we all have a common enemy in Harper and then turn around and do what Rae did, the whole thing looks like a con game.
I have yet to see anything more than a peep of criticism toward Palestine
Maybe because, at this point, there is no Palestine, just a colony and an open-air prison.
You can't say anything bad about Israel - that would be anti-semetic!
You can't say anything bad about Ignatieff - that would be pro-Harper!
You can't say anything bad about Bush (or Obama) - that would be anti-American!
You can't say anything bad about Afghanistan/the Global War on Terror - don't you Support the Troops???
You can't say anything anti-status quo - that makes you part of the Liberal Media - PRO CBC - a goddam COMMUNIST!!! or a TERRORIST!!!! You love the TALIBAN, DON'T you???
C'mon. Gimme a break. Just how stupid do you think we are????
Meat started with
"It frustrates me to no end that no one is quite as apt at tearing down Liberal candidates than supposed liberals themselves."
Meat, who you calling a liberal? I'm a radical. Closest I come to small-ell liberalism would be a respect for Rawlsian justice theory.
"All I'm doing is criticizing a politician for dishonesty in the service of pandering for votes. That is all. It's what bloggers do."
Fair enough.
"The thought of Israel eventually becoming ruled by an Arab majority is threatening. That would be the end of the dream of having a Jewish State. The two state solution is built on that fear of having to submit to losing that status."
Yes, Israeli Jews think they need a state, and an army, because they believe that others may wish to kill them.
This is not an unreasonable fear. As the Hamas Covenant says:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/Hamas_covenant.pdf
There are also right-wing Jews who similarly wish to obliterate Palestine.
As a result, Palestinians need a state, and an army, to protect themselves from such fanatics.
Two states will be necessary for a solution.
When, in 2002, in the pages of The Guardian, Michael Ignatieff used the terms "Bantustan" and "apartheid" to compare Israeli treatment of Palestinians to the practices of the defunct regime in South Africa, was he undermining the legitimacy of the Israeli state?
This might seem like I'm spinning so much you should turn me into a generator, or refold my tinfoil hat, but a connection clicked in my mind on this.
If Iggy believes that criticizing Israeli-state policies as apartheid are anti-semetic and undermine the legitimacy of that state, then is he not also suggesting that the policies of ethnic exclusion and apartheid form the core of the Israeli state's existence, without which it would cease to be?
is he not also suggesting that the policies of ethnic exclusion and apartheid form the core of the Israeli state's existence
If you take his comments at face value then yes, that's what he's saying. It makes him the one who's questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a state since he's already acknowledged that apartheid is a crime against humanity. He's suggesting that Israel is, at its core, a criminal enterprise. I don't think that's what he really had in mind but there it is.