News

The false equivalence of liberal Zionists

One of the most well worn tricks of the PR trade is establishing a false equivalence between supposed extremes in order to position yourself in the middle as the pragmatic, moderate viewpoint.

In his article “Zero Dark Zero” Roger Cohen does this very thing in an attempt to position liberal Zionism between two extremes. He establishes an ‘equivalency’ in the minds of readers between Israel’s radical extremist religious-nationalist camp and advocates for Palestinian human rights. He writes:

For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel, both the religious-nationalist Israeli push to keep all the land and the Palestinian refusal to abandon the untenable, unacceptable “right of return” (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews) are causes for deep despondency.

With Cohen’s argument in mind here are two videos I’d like you to view. First, religious-nationalist Israelis:


Make sure to hit the ‘cc’ icon to access the subtitles

Next, a Palestinian advocate for the right of return:

Does that look equivalent to you?  Why does Roger Cohen do that?

Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is an ethno-nationalist movement.  In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on equal civic and human rights. This is the challenge for liberal Zionists. To position themselves as moderate they seek to create an equivalence between extremists where none exists. And, evidently, are not averse to using a fallacy to make their arguments when all else fails.

210 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Boo. For shame. You just proved Roger Cohen’s point for him. You juxtaposed a video of the most extreme Jewish settler you could find with a well articulated argument by a famous Palestinian advocate. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of your side. Why not be fair and post two videos that are even remotely comparable?

Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is a liberation movement. In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on denying equal civic and human rights to the Jewish people, while affirming those same rights for the Palestinians. It is a campaign of double-standards designed to delegitimize the Jewish people’s inherent right to self-determination.

The fallacy of this false equivalence is that the two states envisioned by UNGA in 1947 did not foresee and explicitly did not allow the two states (one Jewish and one Arab) to discriminate against the people of the other camp then living within the territory suggested (yes, it was a mere suggestion) for the two states. The proposed (or suggested) Jewish State would have had a Jewish majority and could have magnified that majority via selected immigration. But expulsion of Arabs by Jews or vice-versa was neither foreseen nor allowed by the UNGA.

The UNGA, upon seeing the expulsions — and Israel’s refusal to allow returnn of the refugees/exiles — immediately, and repeatedly over the years, asserted a Palestinian Right of Return. Israel, as we know, ignored or denied the PRoR.

BDS in asking for PRoR merely asks for what UNGA proposed or suggested in 1947, an what the Jewish Agency said that it agreed to, and what UNGA demanded repeatedly thereafter. BDS does not by PRoR demand the destruction of Israel nor necessarily the creation within Israel of a non-Jewish majority, although that might happen (and might have happened had Israel never expelled/exiled the Palestinians in the first place). Israel can avoid a population with large Arab population by the simple (if distasteful to many Israelis) expedient of falling back into a territorially smaller “Israel”,

In refusing PRoR, Israel is acting against the human rights of the Palestinians as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in numerous UNGA resolutions.

Those Liberal Zionists who resist PRoR (I’m sure they do not all do so) are extremists, not moderate middle-of-the-roaders. They demand the fulfilment of promises that they made to themselves (a predominantly Jewish state), not promises made to them by Balfour, the Mandate, or UNGA.

I am a “two stater”. From that perspective, right of return exists but is not absolute.

For example, Jews who descent from property owners in Poland that was owned before WWII and than was confiscated at least twice (Nazis, Communists) have the right to compensation but normally at some fraction of the value of these properties today.

Full recognition of the rights to property etc. is a quite understandable demand but clearly, negotiable.

Settlements are similarly negotiable, although I have much harder time marshaling ANY valid argument for making them “understandable”. This is one asymmetry.

The second asymmetry is that postulating RoR causes mild psychological discomfort, while maintaining and expanding settlements closely associated with continuing dispossession, repressions and immiseration.

Ideally, some simple measures would force Israel to evacuate all lands sized after Oslo accords and then to negotiate in good faith, e.g. sanctions copied from those that are currently applied to Iran. I have seen a very nice description of the negotiation mode envisioned by liberal Zionists and other mainstream liberals “negotiations of a whip with an ass” (whip and posterior? try to translate “negocjacje dupy z batem”)

‘Why does Roger Cohen do that?”…annie

Because he is a zionist.
Zionism is a genetic brain disorder caused by a different form of a gene, called the ‘Z” gene, found in some Jews, a gene mutation similar to the “AS”(anti semite) gene mutation found primilary in gentiles.

However amazing research is being done in ‘brain sharing’ that one day might lead to a solution in brains curing each other.

Duke University Connects Rat Brains,
http://www.geekosystem.com/wired-telepathy/Cached
1 day ago – Researchers at Duke University have successfully wired together the brains of two rats, allowing the animals to share a response to a stimulus …

So we just have to connect the Z brain to the AS brain and the Z and AS genes will short each other out. Viola! A cure. Or worse case two dead brains. Whichever..problem solved.

” In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on equal civic and human rights. This is the challenge for liberal Zionists. To position themselves as moderate they seek to create an equivalence between extremists where none exists. And, evidently, are not adverse to using a fallacy to make their arguments when all else fails.”

Have heard this false equivalency argument used by Jewish friends over and over again through the decades “both sides are wrong” Just absolute dangerous hogwash.

Great post Annie.