Well. It might
be a little bit odd to start your blog with something like this. But who knows,
maybe it will lead to something more pleasant at the end.
Sam Harris,
known by many of us as one of the four horsemen of atheism and the founder of
the Project: Reason has recently wrote a piece with the title : Why I don't criticize Israel?
What I am gonna
do is to analyze the piece for fallacies and their effect on his overall
reasoning. I will quote each part and analyze it separately. I am not going to
point to every possible fallacy in the piece but I only single out the most
prominent ones. My reference for the fallacies is the thinker's guide to
fallacies By Richard Paul and Linda Elder, both of whom are among the founders
of critical thinking movement. You can download the book here for
free.
Let's start
"I was going to do a podcast on a series
of questions, but I got so many questions on the same topic that I think I’m
just going to do a single response here, and we’ll do an #AskMeAnything podcast
next time.
The question I’ve now received in many forms goes
something like this: Why is it that you never criticize Israel? Why is it that
you never criticize Judaism? Why is it that you always take the side of the
Israelis over that of the Palestinians?
Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing
question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both
Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some
sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this
moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims. I’ve debated rabbis
who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers,
they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God
who can hear prayers?” So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a
God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him—and therefore,
nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of
Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is
very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all.
This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non
sequitur in Islam or Christianity."
Well, I prefer
to accept this part as just an opinion. But if we want to accept it as
reasoning, we might found some inconsistencies in his reasoning across the
passage and in his total stance on particularly the issue of Islam. "I've
kept some sense of proportion". this in my opinion means that He believes
that per capita criticism of religion should be balanced between all religions,
so because Judaism involves several millions and for example Islam more than
one billion people, Islam is naturally exposed more to his criticism. I might
say that why such proportion is needed, and shouldn't this per capita criticism
also involve actions? For example if Israel as a representative of most of the
Judaism kills one hundredth of what Muslims kill, shouldn't it be blamed
similarly? this part is not really important in my opinion, so I am going to
the next point.
How can one be
atheist and at the same time Jew? isn't it a little bit paradoxical? Let's
assume he means many people has cultural bonds to Judaism but do not believe in
God, that's okay. So do Muslims and Christians. I am a culturally Muslim, and
many of my friends are, but we do not believe in God. For example we have a
sense of nostalgia whenever we are in the environment in which Muslim Azan
(prayer) is heard. We eat Halal meat and our mourning ceremonies are completely
Islamic. But we are free thinkers, we drink alcohol occasionally, we oppose our
governments when they want to impose Islamic laws on us. I really see no
difference. But if he means something more than cultural bond, then his claim
of atheism is a little bit weird or even hypocritical.
"So, when we’re talking about the
consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least
of the least offenders. But I have said many critical things about Judaism. Let
me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and
Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to
be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any
part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t
take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis
are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing. "
Again based on
the previous part, you supposed A (Judaism is compatible with atheism, but
Islam or Christianity isn't), you are concluding B (less offense). A as I gave
you my example is incorrect, therefore B cannot be concluded from it.
Then comes this
"It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided
by scripture—and that’s a very good thing. "
Well this is not
a Fact. The notion of state of Israel is based on the concepts of King David,
the Promised Land, The right of Return of Jews to the Israel all of which have
strong religious basis and in fact are the reason for the Palestine-Israel
conflict. (If there was no religious basis--> no state of Israel--> no
return to the homeland--> no conflict). Pay attention of how he reached
another false conclusion from a false reason.
But let's assume
for the sake of discussion, that state of Israel is not religiously based. So
the question arises that why Israelis have right in the land of Palestine? (the
religious basis is absurd in my opinion). I can find no answer to this
question. Accordingly, the State of Israel is founded based on use of force to
expel the indigenous people from where they lived and to colonize
with people. This cannot in anyway be a moral thing (you are using force
to expel somebody from his homeland, be it a country, region, whatever). And an
immoral thing is a bad thing.
"Of course, there are some who are. There
are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly
dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as
the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people."
These are all
facts. Being fewer does not mean being more righteous though, because of the
same concept of proportionality (similar percentage in both groups means larger
number in the Muslim community). And, maybe he has noticed that Israel is now
run by one of the far right governments, in which those dangerous people are in
charge of destroying the other side. There are also few Muslims who are far
right and who are in control of key posts in some of the Islamic governments.
These people can be dangerous, although there are few of them. I am not saying
that the two are similar completely, I am just trying to say that place of
these extremist people is important in the power hierarchy.
"For those of you who worry that I never say
anything critical about Israel: My position on Israel is somewhat
paradoxical. There are questions about which I’m genuinely undecided. And
there’s something in my position, I think, to offend everyone. So, acknowledging
how reckless it is to say anything on this topic, I’m nevertheless going to
think out loud about it for a few minutes.
I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish
state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state
organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a
Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims
to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read
this paragraph again.]"
Fine, let's go
to the next paragraph.
"Though I just said that I don’t think
Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is
rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the
world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity.
So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a
single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel
might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve
got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable. [Note: It is
worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish” in the sense that Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.” As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel
is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion
to its citizens. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its
Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. However, if we ask why the
Jews wouldn’t move to British Columbia if offered a home there, we can see the
role that religion still plays in their thinking.]"
So Sam offers a
nonreligious basis for the Jewish state, but in reality it has religious basis,
as he himself points out. As I mentioned above, in the nonreligious case you
took someone's land who has little to do with the murder of Jews in the 20th
century and probably because they were the weakest, and make it your own
homeland. Can I please call this immoral? which means the base for state of
Israel is immoral? which means the country is based on an immoral idea? The
second one is based on religious basis that is
totally incomprehensible for me.
This is a very
clear inconsistency in my opinion. Now you might say Sam is separating himself
from the religious basis, but at the same time is saying that the nonreligious
basis is not the real reason for the foundation of Israel. So what is the value
of his reasoning of a nonreligious basis for Israel in Reality? Nothing.
In addition, you
usually have a reason and then act based on it. What he is doing is to find a
reason after something has happened. This is not only incorrect but also
unethical.
So let's have a
brief overview . The state of Israel is based on an immoral (in the case of
nonreligious) or absurd (religious) idea, both of which are indefensible. And
No one is going to argue that if there was no Israel, there was no conflict,
and no resistance or terrorism or whatever of any kind at least with relation
to this issue.
"Needless to say, in defending its territory
as a Jewish state, the Israeli government and Israelis themselves have had to
do terrible things. They have, as they are now, fought wars against the
Palestinians that have caused massive losses of innocent life. More civilians
have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a
surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth.
Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and
other noncombatants killed. And there’s probably little question over the
course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount
to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal
by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their
enemies . [Note: I
was not giving Israel a pass to commit war crimes. I was making a point about
the realities of living under the continuous threat of terrorism and of
fighting multiple wars in a confined space.]"
It looks fine
until here: " They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made
brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their
enemies ." I simply cannot comprehend this part. Let's take a deep
breath and start with reasoning again. You immorally occupy somewhere, you then
want to defend your occupation, you do immoral things, and this is because of
your enemies? (read this ten times ). Let's restart, you occupied somewhere
which in the process killed many, created many refugees, destroyed hundreds of
villages and towns, and you were not brutal enough, so someone was there to
brutalize you?
Do we at least
some consensus that Not being brutal probably means not killing, destroying....
? in which condition is it possible to not brutalize an occupier in Sam's mind?
The only thing in my mind is that the occupied must remain silent and leave
his/her home without any resistance. God forbid he resist, because this
"nature" is going to brutalize your occupier.
This is a
fallacy. He is accusing the opponent of Israel of what Israel itself is.
Sam probably
assumed that Jews were largely good people until they were brutalized by their
"enemies" whose land they occupied. This is a prime example of black
and white thinking, or demonizing them /sanitizing yourself reasoning. It can
be refuted -as I mentioned above- by the fact that the act of occupation and
its belonging (massacres, destruction,...) are brutal enough to make the
founders of Israel eligible for the "brutal" label without the need
for a "enemy" with a special nature to be there. If even this is not
enough for you, you might want to read a little bit about the actions of
militias who founded Israel.
"Whatever terrible things the Israelis have
done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their
fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western
Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public
scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against
aggressors . The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the
condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of
proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I
was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most
careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]"
Before we go
further, I want to say the rest of discussion are side issues. The state of
Israel and its occupation, which are the main causes of conflict are immoral
and indefensible. So is anything that justifies their continuation in the
status quo. What Harris is doing here, is dedicating his attention to the
issues that are NOT the main reason of the conflict. This is a fallacy in
the sense that it deviates the audience attention from the main point.
In the recent 50
years, how many occupations have been done by the Europe or US with population
transfer, illegal settlements,...This is a classic example of false analogy,
when you want to treat two things similarly which are different in many areas.
Israel/Palestine war is very different from other wars in the sense that it is
a accompanied by a permanent occupation.
"They have
endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to
while defending itself against aggressors . The Israelis simply are
held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the
rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually
done."
I see no
reasoning here. There is even double standard in favor of Israel. Just compare
it with Iran for example. Israel is the only country who occupies the somebody
else's land and at the same time has complete support of US. Israel is one of the countries that
have highest number of UN resolution against it, because of continuous violation
of international law and yet did not give a damn about them. Just have a look at the long list.
Nobody has imposed sanctions against it and it even enjoys free trade and
support from world powers. It is not a member of non-proliferation treaty and
is the only power in the ME with nuclear weapons. It also is not a member of
ICC. If with all of these its treatment seems unfair, then maybe we should know
the meaning of fair in Harris mind.
"It is clear that Israel is losing the PR
war and has been for years now. One of the most galling things for
outside observers about the current war in Gaza is the disproportionate loss of
life on the Palestinian side. This doesn’t make a lot of moral sense. Israel
built bomb shelters to protect its citizens. The Palestinians built tunnels
through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis. Should
Israel be blamed for successfully protecting its population in a defensive war?
I don’t think so. [Note: I
was not suggesting that the deaths of Palestinian noncombatants are anything
less than tragic. But if retaliating against Hamas is bound to get innocents
killed, and the Israelis manage to protect their own civilians in the meantime,
the loss of innocent life on the Palestinian side is guaranteed to be
disproportionate.]"
Again you
occupy--> somebody resists (even with violent means)---> you bomb them
and kill them--> we condemn the killing of the occupied --> this does not
make any moral sense?
It does because
Israel started it with occupation. We are not talking about a cross-section in
time. This is a dynamic process Mr Harris. This is an ongoing conflict with
thousands of intricate factors in it. You are ignoring the evidence of what has
led to this conflict. And it is long-standing occupation. Yes I am saying it
over and over again so that we do not get lost in arguments of minor or even
unrelated issues. Besides the occupation, what is the cause of these
"terror tunnels"? How many people were killed by these tunnels or
kidnapped by them? What is the cause of Hamas creation? what has led to this type of
resistance? This "defensive war" is inherently wrong, because you are
defending a nation who has occupied someone else' land, built walls, has
imposed blockades because of political reasons, discriminated against them,
built settlements where it clearly should not, and controlled their everyday
life. He ignores all of these in his reasoning to reach to the tunnels? This is
classic cherry picking.
Again, he is
simply ignoring the fact that, even in the most recent conflict, killing of
three Israeli's was responded by an indiscriminate attack to arrest
hundreds of people (how can hundreds of people have killed three persons), by
burning of a Palestinian child, and after these the rockets started raining. He
simply chooses not to give a damn about these evidence, because it contradicts
his story of defense. And Israel did this regularly, there is evidence from
Israeli authorities to do it regularly to strangulate the Gaza population to enrage them against
Hamas. Every time a new excuse is created. Even in the recent conflict, first
it was the children, then it was the rockets, then it was the tunnels. Does he
see any inconsistencies here? I do
Then comes his
twist of argument, nobody is condemning Israel for defending its own
population, but we are condemning it of indiscriminate killing of civilians.
How on earth killing children on the beach, or killing fleeing civilians which
was caught on video is bound to killing Hamas militants. How can we justify
several incidence of shelling and bombing UN schools, hospitals, or Gaza's sole
power plant?
"But there is no way to look at the images
coming out Gaza—especially of infants and toddlers riddled by shrapnel—and
think that this is anything other than a monstrous evil. Insofar as the
Israelis are the agents of this evil, it seems impossible to support them. And
there is no question that the Palestinians have suffered terribly for decades
under the occupation. This is where most critics of Israel appear to be stuck.
They see these images, and they blame Israel for killing and maiming babies.
They see the occupation, and they blame Israel for making Gaza a prison camp. I
would argue that this is a kind of moral illusion, borne of a failure to look
at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand
the intentions of the people on either side of it.[Note: I was not
saying that the horror of slain children is a moral illusion; nor was I
minimizing the suffering of the Palestinians under the occupation. I was
claiming that Israel is not primarily to blame for all this suffering.]"
"I would argue that this is a kind of moral
illusion, borne of a failure to look at the actual causes of this
conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on
either side of it."
This is another
classic fallacy of projecting what in fact you are to your opponent. From
"moral illusion" to " failure to look at the the actual
cause" and " failure to understand the intentions of the people on
either side of it".
Let's have a
closer look. What can possibly be an actual cause of a conflict where somebody
occupies somebody else's land, and the other people tries to resist with any
means possible? is it resistance? is it violent resistance? is it tunnels? is
it genocidal ideas of Hamas? can't we simply have a look at the temporal relationship
between cause and effect? How on earth can a cause come after an effect? is it
logically possible?
Second, the
intention of the people on the other side does not have any pretexts? any
backgrounds? isn't occupation by any chance the reason of that intention? and
if you are "arguing" it is not please give evidence and not just
speculations.
Third, have you
looked closer to the intentions of the side you are defending to have a
balanced view? have you for example looked at the Likud charter that does not give a damn about the
Palestinian's right to have a state?
Fourth, is the
intention of killing more important than the action? in the world that I lives
in an intention to a commit a certain behavior just occasionally leads to
action, because of several external limiting factors.
"The truth is that there is an obvious,
undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her
enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal
intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is
explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based
on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where
the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind
me. Come and kill him.”
This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted
into power by a majority of Palestinians. [Note: Yes,
I know that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do to have brought
them to power. Hamas is not a fringe group.]"
"The truth
is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral
difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by
people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them."
There are
several fallacies in here. First one is oversimplification. From a dynamic
issue, Harris chose to stick to just one point: Hamas charter. Nothing about
how Hamas was created, how even resistance was created, how people chose Hamas
over Fatah, and most importantly how the whole conflict was created. And it is
simple to refute this argument with just one sentence. Why was Israel doing the
same thing before Hamas was created?
The second one
is making morality status of Israel to sound righteous using four words: truth,
obvious, undeniable, hugely. These are not reasoning and I am not going to
object them. They are devoid of any meaning. Indeed, Occupation and building
settlements and killing and destroying thousands in the process without
giving a damn about the international community is both immoral and mostly
before Hamas was created.
"We are
talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of
Palestinians. [Note: Yes, I know
that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do to have brought them
to power. Hamas is not a fringe group.]"
Again I want to
consider how Harris is deliberately or unintentionally twisting the argument,
ignoring many facts, and sticking to the points that only support him. He goes
from a general point which is the conflict to a specific issue which is Hamas
and then is basing his argument only on Hamas, without considering the whole
situation which is occupation.
"The discourse in the Muslim world about
Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust
denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The
only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have
happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it.
There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that
teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of
killing Jews"
Aside from being
overgeneralized and dramatized, I do not see a point here of how this justifies
the occupation?
But let's assume
Harris is solely speaking about some of his concerns. These questions should be
answered:
1. How many
Muslims do not believe in holocaust? how do you know that? Why then many
Muslims are comparing Holocaust to Israeli action in the recent conflict.
Doesn't this mean that they believe in holocaust?
2." If we
get the chance we will accomplish it." Well, in Harris mind, the Israeli
side very rarely has these guys, but in the Muslim world many Muslims want to
do this. He probably does have some real representative statistics for these.
Let's hope he will publish them one day.
3. How many
children are taught to do this? for what reason? are the other side not doing
the same thing? I have seen many pictures of both sides of this brainwashing
process. Why should we only condemn one side? and why shouldn't we mention the
background for such actions? Why for example prior to creation of the
State of Israel Jews and Muslims lived together in Palestine? Does this give
you any hint to some reason other than Koranic prophecy?
4. Have you seen
the response of some Israelis to condemnation of Israel's action by some
holocaust survivors? they wished they should have died in gas
chambers. Yes they are some fanatics, but the same is true about the
other side, bearing in mind that the other side is the oppressed side and react
to oppression. What is Israel reacting to?
5. Appeal
to fear is another example of fallacious reasoning. Fear-mongering words
without little evidence or suitable context is what is being used to change the
reader's mind about the conflict. This notion that they want to kill us
whenever they can is flourishing in the whole piece, but has little evidence
and little attention to the cause rather than the effect.
"And this gets to the heart of the moral
difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed
in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to
ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it"
He is generalizing
an entity of national resistance to the whole Muslim world to justify his
argument. Can I ask him before Hamas was created, how was resistance in the
Palestine? was it based on Koranic prophecy? or
was it a secular movement? Then why should I believe Israel's
brutality is something more moral than resistance?
And Yet another
classic example of black and white thinking. Rather than his fairy tail
reasoning , I would rather to see the reality. In reality Israel has occupied
the Palestinian homeland by force, killed them or expelled many, and colonize
their lands. You cannot justify this action by a rhetoric of nonexistent action.
Again never ever you can claim intention equals action, because it is not. Only
a proportion of intention leads to action. Also Harris should respond to this
question that why despite "Koranic prophecy" of killing Jews, Palestine was a place for all religions
before the creation of the state of Israel? that single reality can refute his
argument of presence of a general tendency of genocidal idea toward the Jews in
the Muslim world.
"What would the Jews do to the Palestinians
if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that
question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army
could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means
that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as
happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident . They’re not targeting
children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a
Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international
pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other
noncombatants. [Note: The
word “so” in the previous sentence was regrettable and misleading. I didn’t
mean to suggest that safeguarding its reputation abroad would be the only (or
even primary) reason for Israel to avoid killing children. However, the point
stands: Even if you want to attribute the basest motives to Israel, it is
clearly in her self-interest not to
kill Palestinian children.]"
""What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they
could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question,
because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could
kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means
that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as
happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident . "
In Harris's
view, when we are analyzing this issue, we must see it as the only entity. And
he does it over and over again. This oversimplification is a fallacy. He
simply does not see the whole context in which this is happening. One reason
for killing children can be accident, but to believe this we should ignore the testimonies
of several Israeli soldiers, we should ignore the report of several human rights organizations,
and to do this we should ignore the fact that there has always been
international and internal pressure on Israel. No Israel cannot do this even if
it wants to, because it is totally insane. Having power is just one factor out
of many factors to do something. Again his
"intention"="action" argument.
"However,
the point stands: Even if you want to attribute the basest motives to Israel, it
is clearly in her self-interest not to
kill Palestinian children." This
is just one of many possible explanations and in fact a very remote
one. Doesn't it make sense to kill children to break the resistance of the
people, to make them enrage and then respond to their rage? doesn't it make
sense to kill children and then say it was by accident, particularly if you
have done so before in many situations from USS liberty "accident" to bombing of multiple UN facilities to deliberately targeting civilians and medical staff?
"Now, is it possible that some Israeli
soldiers go berserk under pressure and wind up shooting into crowds of
rock-throwing children? Of course. You will always find some soldiers acting
this way in the middle of a war. But we know that this isn’t the general intent
of Israel. We know the Israelis do not want to kill non-combatants, because
they could kill as many as they want, and they’re not doing it."
Fallacy:
ignoring evidence to the contrary. If we want to believe him, Israel army is
nothing but a gang of lunatics. Here there are some evidence that this is
indeed a systematic action:
www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/04/gaza-israeli-soldiers-shoot-and-kill-fleeing-civilians
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/04/gaza-israeli-soldiers-shoot-and-kill-fleeing-civilians
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/proof-israel-targeting-civilians-gaza.html
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/idf-whistleblower-who-posted-israeli-troops-killed-gaza-civilians-in-revenge-now-under-arrest/
breakingthesilence.org.il
"What do we know of the Palestinians? What
would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were
reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s
critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even
when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve
already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People
are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit
genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the
Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every
Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of
Muslims throughout the world—would . Needless to say, the Palestinians in general,
not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most
shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in
restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes.
They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of
their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the
Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere. [Note: Again, I realize that not all
Palestinians support Hamas. Nor am I discounting the degree to which the
occupation, along with collateral damage suffered in war, has fueled
Palestinian rage. But Palestinian terrorism (and Muslim anti-Semitism) is what
has made peaceful coexistence thus far impossible.]"
I point to
fallacies that are being repeated over and over again:
overgeneralization
(most Muslim would: How many? why? ), ignoring evidence (we should listen to
them: but only to their charter, not to other things they said), cherry picking
(loosing the context of occupation as the root cause of the conflict), ....
"But
Palestinian terrorism (and Muslim anti-Semitism) is what has made peaceful
coexistence thus far impossible."
This is a
"A caused B" argument. Let's see how much it is true. First of all
the root cause of all these is occupation as Jews were living with Muslims in
Palestine before Israel creation. Second, this reasoning needs some evidence.
How did he conclude it? Why should I stick to the reason which is followed
rather than to precede occupation? Why should I believe that Israel land
grabbing policy and settlements have nothing to do with the peace process? why
should I believe that Rabin's assassination by an Israeli has nothing to do
with the peace process? why should I believe that Israel that never defined its
real borders has any intention to peace? Are these a response to
"terrorist" acts?
Is it really
incomprehensible for Sam Harris that Palestinian have the right to resist
against their occupiers? and when they are no match for a complete army they
use guerrilla warfare and terrorism. It is interesting that
similar terrorist actions leads to the creation of state of Israel and same
terrorists became the IDF and the Israeli authority (link is provided above).
This has a meaning for me that is when you cannot fight like an army, you will
use other means. The reason rather than the means are important here. Jews did
so to colonize a land, while Palestinians did so to fight back. If you
look at the issue like this which is real, the Palestinians have "the
moral high ground".
"The truth is that everything you need to
know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies can be understood
on the topic of human shields. Who uses human shields? Well, Hamas certainly
does. They shoot their rockets from residential neighborhoods, from beside schools,
and hospitals, and mosques. Muslims in other recent conflicts, in Iraq and
elsewhere, have also used human shields. They have laid their rifles on the
shoulders of their own children and shot from behind their bodies."
Up to know, I saw no "moral imbalance" in favor of Israel in his
argument. Terrorism was used by both parties one for colonization and land
grabbing the other for resistance. Both parties have deliberately targeted
civilian areas. Israel with its precision weapons and Hamas with its non-discriminant
rockets. In addition Israel is the root cause of the situation by its
occupation, settlements, walls, blockades, and discrimination against Arabs.
But about the
human shield. First of all, what Muslims do or not do in other conflicts has
nothing to do with this situation. This is an overgeneralizing fallacy.
Second, using
emotionally charged words with little meaning, the truth is, who uses human
shields? well Hamas certainly does. Okay that's it we are done!. A very nice
argument.
Nope Mr Harris,
Human shield is not shooting from residential areas, it has a specific meaning
in war and this meaning only has been documented to be
committed by Israel. Only Israel places the people in front of its
firearms. There is no single evidence (read this ten times) for use of human
shields by Hamas. Firing rockets from residential areas are certainly to be
condemned, but human shield is morally far worse in my opinion.
A statement by Amnesty International on
Human Shield: Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating
such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian
civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups
during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military
personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty
International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored
munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the
Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also
emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli
warnings to evacuate. However,
these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and
displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing
specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters,
munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if
“human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians
would still apply.
"Consider the moral difference between using
human shields and being deterred by them. That is the difference we’re talking
about. The Israelis and other Western powers are deterred, however imperfectly,
by the Muslim use of human shields in these conflicts, as we should be. It is morally
abhorrent to kill noncombatants if you can avoid it. It’s certainly abhorrent
to shoot through the bodies of children to get at your adversary. But take a
moment to reflect on how contemptible this behavior is. And understand how
cynical it is. The Muslims are acting on the assumption—the knowledge, in
fact—that the infidels with whom they fight, the very people whom their
religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human
shields. They consider the Jews the spawn of apes and pigs—and yet they rely on
the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants. [Note: The term
“Muslims” in this paragraph means “Muslim combatants” of the sort that Western
forces have encountered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The term
“jihadists” would have been too narrow, but I was not suggesting that allMuslims
support the use of human shields or are anti-Semitic, at war with the West,
etc.]"
What
Harris does here is basing his argument on his false allegations to reach a
correct conclusion which of course is impossible.We already spoke of
human shields, so the whole thing is nonsense with regard to this conflict.
Let's see his other arguments. Generalizing a national liberation movement to
the whole Jihadist movement is yet another fallacy. The reason of this
particular conflict is OCCUPATION. When you occupy someone's land you
should expect heavy violent resistance. I argue that Hamas is a resistance
movement rather than a Jihadist movement. Prior to Hamas PLO did so which was a
secular movement. The argument is simple.
We have
occupation--> We need resistance: resistance came in several forms (secular,
Islamic, whatever). The form changes but the core content remains the same.
Considering Jews
as apes and pigs is of course disgusting and evil but is a side issue even in
the Muslim world and has nothing to do with the main problem of
Israel/Palestine conflict.This kind of appealing to fear or pity for the Jews
is another fallacy at least when Israel is one of the most powerful armies in
the world.
"Now imagine reversing the roles here.
Imagine how fatuous—indeed comical it would be—for the Israelis to attempt to
use human shields to deter the Palestinians. Some claim that they have already
done this. There are reports that Israeli soldiers have occasionally put
Palestinian civilians in front of them as they’ve advanced into dangerous
areas. That’s not the use of human shields we’re talking about. It’s egregious
behavior. No doubt it constitutes a war crime. But Imagine the Israelis holding
up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be
ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and
children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque
Monty Python skit."
Human shield
argument does not work Mr Harris. Human shield is human shield and it has a
definition in the war. You cannot use it however you want. When did Hamas hold
their children as shields? there is no evidence whatsoever.
"The
Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of
the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit"
One of the things that Sam Harris does frequently in his arguments is creating
cross-sections of unimaginable situations and drawing conclusions from them.
This of course is good for improvement of creativity but has little to do with
real life situations. For example in this instance, he is simply imagining that
the situation would be reverse. But what about the world stance? what about the
form of Palestinian resistance? What about the situations in which this is created?
If there was no occupation, there was no Palestinian resistance in any
kind. There could be Hamas as a totalitarian regime, but why they should have
killed Jews? Simply sticking to one point while ignoring the others and the
background is rarely successful in drawing a reasonable conclusion.
"If you’re going to talk about the conflict
in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think
there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or
consequential than this"
What can I say?
If you still see any difference in favor of Israel, reread my discussion
"And the truth is, this isn’t even the worst
that jihadists do. Hamas is practically a moderate organization, compared to
other jihadist groups. There are Muslims who have blown themselves up in crowds
of children—again, Muslim children—just to get at the American soldiers who
were handing out candy to them. They have committed suicide bombings, only to
send another bomber to the hospital to await the casualities—where they then
blow up all the injured along with the doctors and nurses trying to save their lives"
This is not
about the conflict anymore., although he wants it to be. But just some points
to mention
"children—again,
Muslim children—just to get at the American soldiers who were handing out candy
to them." Not to mention that what the heck American soldiers were doing
there. Why on the earth every US attempt to spread democracy and freedom have
almost always lead to destabilization, dictatorship, and more Jihadism. I can
not read minds, but these seem to be heterogenesis in Harris's view.
"Every day that you could read about an
Israeli rocket gone astray or Israeli soldiers beating up an innocent teenager,
you could have read about ISIS in Iraq crucifying people on the side of the
road, Christians and Muslims. Where is the outrage in the Muslim world and on
the Left over these crimes? Where are the demonstrations, 10,000 or 100,000
deep, in the capitals of Europe against ISIS? If Israel kills a dozen
Palestinians by accident, the entire Muslim world is inflamed. God forbid you
burn a Koran, or write a novel vaguely critical of the faith . And yet
Muslims can destroy their own societies—and seek to destroy the West—and you
don’t hear a peep. [Note: Of
course, I’m aware that many Muslims condemn groups like ISIS. My point is that
we don’t see massive protests against global jihadism—even though it targets
Muslims more than anyone else—and we do see such protests over things like the
Danish cartoons.] "
Harris is
focusing more and more on side issues and apart from the conflict to justify
his view. Because we do not see massive protest against global Jihadism we
shouldn't condemn Israel's action? A is bad, B is worse, because nobody
condemns B (which is not true, and Muslims and their leaders did so), A should not be condemned?
Yes, the extent
is not similar, but this is not only because "some Muslims love beheading
others"
This is another
prime example of false analogy. Israel is a state, is "democratic",
and has many many Western values at least at the level of rhetoric. It has
someone like Sam Harris that justifies its actions, US supports it directly, it
committed the only state-based occupation in the recent decades, and no Western
state give a damn about its illegal actions. In Harris view this situation is
similar to a nonstate fanatic organization without any democratic values that
no sane person endorses and is not hypocritical while killing nonbelievers.
Nobody at this time is supporting it among the world powers and few if any
people show hypocrisy when it is turn of ISIS.
"So, it seems to me, that you have to side
with Israel here. You have one side which if it really could accomplish its
aims would simply live peacefully with its neighbors, and you have another side
which is seeking to implement a seventh century theocracy in the Holy Land.
There’s no peace to be found between those incompatible ideas. That
doesn’t mean you can’t condemn specific actions on the part of the Israelis.
And, of course, acknowledging the moral disparity between Israel and her
enemies doesn’t give us any solution to the problem of Israel’s existence in
the Middle East. [Note: I
was not suggesting that Israel’s actions are above criticism or that their
recent incursion into Gaza was necessarily justified. Nor was I saying that the
status quo, wherein the Palestinians remain stateless, should be maintained.
And I certainly wasn’t expressing support for the building of settlements on
contested land (as I made clear below). By “siding with Israel,” I am simply
recognizing that they are not the primary aggressors in this conflict. They
are, rather, responding to aggression—and at a terrible cost.] "
So let me get it straight. After basing his argument on
several fallacious reasons, he is now drawing conclusion based on those
reasoning, which of course is nothing but false. Just I want to focus on one
statement: "By “siding with Israel,” I am simply recognizing that
they are not the primary aggressors in this conflict. They are, rather,
responding to aggression—and at a terrible cost. " I have problem
with his word "aggression" here . First of all when you occupy
someone's land, you should naturally expect violence. And you cannot condemn
the other side for its resistance while you are the perpetrator. When Harris
says he is not supporting settlements etc etc, he indeed cannot separate these
issues, because they are closely interconnected. "Aggression" is not
happening as a sole sudden entity, but as a result of Israeli policies. So when
you are going to do a moral judgement you cannot separate these two, because
they are in a clear cause and effect relationship.
"Again, granted, there’s some percentage of
Jews who are animated by their own religious hysteria and their own prophesies.
Some are awaiting the Messiah on contested land. Yes, these people are willing
to sacrifice the blood of their own children for the glory of God. But, for the
most part, they are not representative of the current state of Judaism or the
actions of the Israeli government. And it is how Israel deals with these
people—their own religious lunatics—that will determine whether they can truly
hold the moral high ground. And Israel can do a lot more than it has to
disempower them. It can cease to subsidize the delusions of the Ultra-Orthodox,
and it can stop building settlements on contested land. [Note: Read that
again. And, yes, I understand that not all settlers are Ultra-Orthodox.]"
There is
also another error here: ultra-orthodox Jews oppose the idea of the State of
Israel and have nothing to do with it. He probably meant ultra-Zionists.
"These incompatible religious attachments to
this land have made it impossible for Muslims and Jews to negotiate like
rational human beings, and they have made it impossible for them to live in
peace. But the onus is still more on the side of the Muslims here. Even on
their worst day, the Israelis act with greater care and compassion and
self-criticism than Muslim combatants have anywhere, ever.
And again, you have to ask yourself, what do
these groups want? What would they accomplish if they could accomplish
anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They
would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live
in peace with them. They would simply continue to build out their high tech
sector and thrive. [Note:Some
might argue that they would do more than this—e.g. steal more Palestinian land.
But apart from the influence of Jewish extremism (which I condemn), Israel’s
continued appropriation of land has more than a little to do with her security
concerns. Absent Palestinian terrorism and Muslim anti-Semitism, we could be
talking about a “one-state solution,” and the settlements would be moot."
""These
incompatible religious attachments to this land have made it impossible for
Muslims and Jews to negotiate like rational human beings, and they have made it
impossible for them to live in peace. "--> no they are not
incompatible. Reason: Before the creation of Israel all of them lived together
in the holy land. So what is the reason? The Israel needs the land that belongs
to all of them. The Israel despite international law, announced
Jerusalem as their eternal capital. So how is onus is still more on the
side of Muslim here?
"Even on
their worst day, the Israelis act with greater care and compassion and
self-criticism than Muslim combatants have anywhere, ever." They actually
just showed a political gesture and then forgot about it. Not to mention that
greater compassion and self-criticism is a duty for Israel as an occupier.
"And again,
you have to ask yourself, what do these groups want? What would they accomplish
if they could accomplish anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do
what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had
neighbors who would live in peace with them. They would simply continue to
build out their high tech sector and thrive."
What Harris is
saying here: let's forget about the occupation, the settlements and so on when
we are arguing over this issue, and now let's base our argument on what
everybody accomplishes here. Arabs will probably remain in their low-tech life
spreading the Koranic prophecy but Israel develops high tech industry and live
in peace. This is again black and white thinking, but let's debunk it a little.
First, no impartial legal authority will judge the occupation based on what
will be accomplished by each side. This is completely irrelevant. The
occupation is illegal, the settlements are illegal, and they are the core cause
of the conflict which means if they were not here, we did not have this
conflict. Second, Who said that High tech industry is an accomplishment more
than preserving a human life in the first place? Why should we hold such
assumption when everything we develop (hopefully) is to preserve human life and
not the other way around? third, why should we believe that Israel wanted peace
while it continuously stole land and built settlements? Are these a way to the
peace? are these a way to fight "terrorists"?
Muslim
anti-semitism and terrorism are secondary to the problem of occupation as I
said hundred times before.
"What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and
even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of
humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people
care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of
condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the
other way"
Harris is again
using his fallacious reasoning to reach to his desired conclusion. First, The
cause of Israel/ Palestine conflict is far from Muslim anti-semitism,
imposing of religious beliefs, and other things he is mentioning here. Second,
we cannot justify the occupation and Israel's action based on being more
secular or educated. The people of Palestine are deprived of any decent way of
life exactly because they are deprived by Israel. When Israel was founded on a
religious belief, PLO a largely secular organization fought it back. Hamas
creation is a direct result of undermining PLO by Israel and preventing any
secular political discourse to take place. Hamas was created because only
Mosques were free enough to become a basis for resistance (link is provided
above). Resistance took a new form because Israel deviated the situation to be
so. Now Harris is ignoring the whole context, as often he did in this
piece to reach his conclusion which is fallacious.
"They want
stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is
not a trivial difference. " In my opinion also being educated is much
better than being Koranic. But, this has nothing to do with justification of
Israel's brutal and immoral action. You can build a bomb and you are probably
more educated than a guy who cannot, but are you more moral? ethical? human?
justified in having more land?
"And yet
judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would
think the difference ran the other way" Mr Harris, this is because the
judgment is not based on irrelevant issues such as education. You cannot take
somebody's land based on higher education status, you cannot defend this stance
based on being more intellectual or secular. Being a professor does not change
your status as a human, does not make you more human, does not make you moral,
does not justify your immoral actions, and so on.
"This kind of confusion puts all of us in
danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the
lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want
to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate
to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of
human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s
just that some of us haven’t realized it yet."
Let's go to the
title: Why I don't criticize Israel, now come back and read this again.
There are
several fallacies here: overgeneralizing a national conflict to the whole
world, shifting the ground of the argument "to the great story of our
time", black and white thinking (we are good, they are evil), ignoring the
main point (which is the conflict), appeal to emotions (they want to destroy
the very possibility of human happiness), assuming a posture of righteousness
(we are good, [forget about destabilizing the whole Middle East in the last
several decades]), Appeal to fear (confusion puts all of us in danger),...
I just want to
debunk one point here "This kind of confusion puts all of us in
danger." Based on my arguments I want to say that indeed Harris is the one
who is confusing the whole issue. His -probably unintentional- spinning of the
argument converted an occupier/occupied conflict into the dangers of Jihadist
movements. If you really have read any of his pieces this can be seen in many
of them. He constantly reduces many argument with even a bit of Islam in
it to a fear-mongering Jihad-related issues. This has been the basis for many of
his "moral stances" such as supporting torture or racial profiling.
At first I wanted to place this part at the beginning, but to avoid affecting
the reader judgment, I did not do so. My last word is, unfortunately Harris
-due to any reason that he should explore himself- is insistent on an
existential threat from global Jihadist Islam and is insistent to include this
in many of his arguments that are hardly related to it. Harris's reasoning in
such instances (as also has been shown by others) is hardly reasoning, and
mainly reality distortion. He distorts reality to reach his goals. This not
only is far from being intellectual, but also is unethical. To use reason as a
tool to reach your goals, rather than defining your goals based on reasoning is
what Harris is doing with respect to these issues. I am not refuting his other
areas of work, but in this particular case and with respect to the Middle East
in general, he has often shown this lack of ability of appropriate
reasoning.
And I am wondering what will be the fate of his
"Project: Reason" based on these kind of arguments.
At last here are some other good arguments that I
saw with respect to this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/31/why-i-criticize-israel/
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/why-sam-harris-wont-criticize-israel/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2014/07/29/a-response-to-sam-harris-so-why-dont-you-criticise-israel-and-palestine/
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/defends-silence-slaughter.html
Confession: I
tried to write this several weeks ago, but I did not because the piece was
emotionally charged and I was really emotionally affected by it. This does not
mean that the current writing is flawless, but it definitely has less emotional
arguments than it could have weeks ago.
