Herzog's opinion: "This is not a battle just between Israel and Hamas"

Analyzing the article

The New York Times

false dilemma

ad hominem

guilt by association

causal oversimplification

Our Analysis: 4 Fallacies

¹Just like ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Hamas terrorists who attacked Israeli homes and families had no qualms about burning babies. They tortured children, raped women and destroyed peace-loving communities.

. . .

We’ve heard certain governments fail to denounce Hamas, instead condemning Israel’s response and even seeking to offer justification for Hamas’s atrocities. ²It would have been unthinkable to hear such moral confusion uttered after the Sept. 11 attacks or after bombings in London, Barcelona and Baghdad.

. . .

Since Hamas forced this war on us, our military has been acting to permanently eliminate this unbearable threat and to enable the return of our hostages. This means fighting in the battlefield that Hamas has created in Gaza over many years — one in which terrorists hide behind and within the civilian population… ³The result of these sickening tactics is the civilian suffering we are all watching unfold.

. . .

But anyone who thinks the cynical exploitation of civilian suffering will tie our hands and save Hamas this time is wrong. For us and for the Palestinians, ⁴the suffering will end only with the removal of Hamas. Anyone trying to tie our hands is, intentionally or not, undermining not only Israel’s defense but also any hope for a world where these atrocities cannot happen.

1. Guilt by association • The text compares Hamas to ISIS and Al Qaeda. While there may be some similarities, each group has distinct ideologies and contexts, with different goals. Drawing an equivalence between them can be seen as the author’s attempt to transfer readers’ negative emotional associations of ISIS and Al Qaeda onto Hamas.

2. Ad hominem • By using the phrase "moral confusion," the author implies that individuals who negatively criticize Israel's actions are somehow misguided or lacking in moral judgment. This line of assertion doesn't address the specific concerns or critiques being made against Israel's actions, but rather attempts to discredit the opposing perspectives by insinuating a deficiency in their moral reasoning.

3. Causal oversimplification • The author implies that Hamas alone is responsible for the humanitarian crisis through the use of human shields and storing weapons in civilian areas. However, the causes of the civilian impacts are likely more complex. Other potential factors could include: the intensity and scope of Israeli military strikes; pre-existing economic conditions and infrastructure in Gaza; blockades and restrictions that affected basic supplies and services; lack of adequate shelters and warning systems. While Hamas' urban warfare tactics are undoubtedly a major factor, the text overlooks other contributors to the crisis when it identifies those tactics as the single or primary cause. It uses a simplified causal claim rather than acknowledging the range of variables at play.

4. Black-and-white thinking • The author frames the conflict in a way that suggests there are only two opposing sides: one supporting Israel and the other supporting Hamas. This oversimplification might lead readers to believe that they must align completely with one side or the other, without acknowledging potential alternative perspectives or nuanced positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Presenting it as a binary choice between unreservedly supporting Israel or siding with Hamas ignores the possibility of holding critical views or seeking alternative solutions that are not wholly aligned with either party. It's essential to recognize that taking a stance doesn't necessarily mean entirely endorsing one side while completely rejecting the other.

References

Isaac Herzog (2023, Nov 3). The President of Israel: This Is Not a Battle Just Between Israel and Hamas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/opinion/isaac-herzog-israel-hamas-gaza.html

Comments

In order to participate in the conversation, head over to your account and setup a Screen Name

In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign in.

In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign up or sign in.

Disclaimer

Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'

NO AI TRAINING

Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.