Harris defends her position on Israel
Analyzing the article
ABC News
Our Analysis: 3 Fallacies
On Oct. 7, Hamas, a terrorist organization, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. Many of them young people who were simply attending a concert. Women were horribly raped. And so absolutely, I said then, I say now, Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must end, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out.
Harris presents a nuanced stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a cease-fire and a two-state solution that ensures security for both sides. However, she does not answer the question directly posed to her, instead engaging in sweeping attacks against Trump that are supported by little else than appeals to unnamed military leaders.
1. begging the question • By advocating for the long-standing two-state solution without providing any new or concrete proposals, Harris could be seen as begging the question or failing to directly answer how she would resolve the current conflict and hostage situation involving Hamas.
DAVIS: Turning now to the Israel-Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held... President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?
HARRIS:... we will continue to work around the clock on that. Work around the clock also understanding that we must chart a course for a two-state solution... we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza...
A two-state solution has been widely desired and worked on by various leaders for decades, without being accomplished. Simply supporting the desired end goal of a two-state solution does not illuminate her actual strategy for getting there, which the moderator was asking about. Harris's response lacks specific details on diplomacy, negotiations or actions she would take as president to break the stalemate and end the violence, beyond just continuing to "work around the clock." In that sense, her argument is somewhat circular and does not fully address the crux of the question posed to her.
2. sweeping generalization • Harris makes an overly broad negative claim about Trump's entire foreign policy record, failing to acknowledge nuances or counterexamples.
It is well known that Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy.
This overlooks cases that contradict her generalization. For example, one of the better known foreign policy accomplishments under Trump is the initiation of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These were a significant diplomatic achievement in the Middle East.
By normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states, these agreements demonstrated Trump's ability to make progress on long-standing issues in the region through unorthodox diplomacy. And this is directly relevant to the topic of Israel which Harris is discussing.
Her critique would have been more accurate if qualified, rather than dismissing his entire foreign policy record. Making a simplistic dismissal without acknowledging nuances or counterexamples weakens the persuasiveness of her argument on this specific point.
3. appeal to authority • Harris cites the opinions of unnamed military leaders to discredit Trump's national security credentials.
That is why so many military leaders who you have worked with have told me you are a disgrace.
Harris relies an the presumed authoritativeness of unnamed "military leaders" to belittle Trump. Without further substantiation and explanation, this is merely an appeal to anonymous authority.
References
- Kamala Harris (2024, Sep 10). Harris on Israel and Gaza: Topic #7 of the Presidential Debate of Sep. 10th, 2024.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542
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.
Comments