Fallacious Reasoning...
In response to Richard Cohen's op-ed in today's WaPo, Why Boycott Israel, Mr. Cohen:
Thank you for devoting your life to creating a public discourse on the most important topics facing the United States and world community. I enjoy reading your opinion pieces; however, I believe your most recent piece, Why Boycott Israel?, has several forms of fallacious reasoning.
It has been said that all knowledge may be reduced to comparison and contrast. In your work you repeatedly mention examples of regimes that one could consider more morally corrupt then that of Israel, that have not received the attention of the British National Union of Journalists. That observation neither strengthens nor weakens your argument from a logical perspective; I believe that one could present an argument without resorting to the classic refuge of "we may be bad, but look at all the worse examples." The case for or against the BNUJ's boycott should be able to stand on its own merits, without comparison to other states.
Most telling, and most damaging, to your argument are the regimes you choose to mention and compare Israel to. You mention China, Russia, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. I am sure the Israeli government would be happy to be held in such high moral company. Shouldn't we expect MORE from Israel then we would from the undemocratic governments of Jiabao, Putin, Castro, al-Bashir, and Mugabe? I believe the crux of the choice of Israel for the boycott comes from the fact that Israel IS held in much higher esteem then those governments. I am neither condoning nor condemning the boycott, however, I believe that the BNUJ has singled out Israel because it is a bastion of at least some democracy in an otherwise autocratic region, and thus expect it to extend that democracy to all those residing within its borders.
Thank you for devoting your life to creating a public discourse on the most important topics facing the United States and world community. I enjoy reading your opinion pieces; however, I believe your most recent piece, Why Boycott Israel?, has several forms of fallacious reasoning.
It has been said that all knowledge may be reduced to comparison and contrast. In your work you repeatedly mention examples of regimes that one could consider more morally corrupt then that of Israel, that have not received the attention of the British National Union of Journalists. That observation neither strengthens nor weakens your argument from a logical perspective; I believe that one could present an argument without resorting to the classic refuge of "we may be bad, but look at all the worse examples." The case for or against the BNUJ's boycott should be able to stand on its own merits, without comparison to other states.
Most telling, and most damaging, to your argument are the regimes you choose to mention and compare Israel to. You mention China, Russia, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. I am sure the Israeli government would be happy to be held in such high moral company. Shouldn't we expect MORE from Israel then we would from the undemocratic governments of Jiabao, Putin, Castro, al-Bashir, and Mugabe? I believe the crux of the choice of Israel for the boycott comes from the fact that Israel IS held in much higher esteem then those governments. I am neither condoning nor condemning the boycott, however, I believe that the BNUJ has singled out Israel because it is a bastion of at least some democracy in an otherwise autocratic region, and thus expect it to extend that democracy to all those residing within its borders.
posted by Anon. at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home