Arguing Small and Strong

Sometimes it's better to make more modest claims

If you’re passionate about a certain ideology or way of life, it’s very upsetting to hear others harshly criticize anything to do with that ideology or way of life. And so the natural, instinctive reaction is to completely deny all of their claims. However, it can often be more truthful, and/or more strategically wise, to make a smaller argument.

For example, when people argue that shechitah is cruel and should be banned, many people are tempted to respond by arguing that it’s entirely painless. But the scientific merits of this claim are questionable, and there is no theological reason why shechitah should necessarily be entirely painless. Furthermore, if you defend shechitah on the grounds that it has "scientifically" been proven painless, then you are effectively conceding that if science proves otherwise, then shechitah should not be done.
Instead, shechitah can be robustly defended on the following grounds: that there may well be a small degree of animal suffering, but this is fully justified for religious benefits, just as human society in general considers a small degree of animal suffering justifiable for human benefit.

The same goes for arguments about alleged atrocities or crimes by Israel, whether in 1948 or 2024. Many people respond by flat-out denying that any crimes ever took place. But it’s more realistic to accept that just as no individual person is perfect, no nation is perfect. And amidst the terrible challenges and environment of war, there are always instances of bad behavior. Indeed, the Torah itself makes it clear that this is a human characteristic.

And so it’s probably more truthful, and arguably more strategically wise, to respond instead that, yes, such crimes may well have been committed, but this does not change the larger picture. Let’s look at some examples.

With regard to crimes allegedly committed by Jews against Palestinians in the 1948 war, some claim that none took place. But an alternative is to say that yes, there were some crimes, but this has nothing to do with the legitimacy and necessity of the Jewish people declaring sovereignty and fighting to survive against those who declared war on them and were determined to wipe them out. It can also be pointed out, as Benny Morris does, that had the Jews lost the War of Independence, the crimes committed by the other side would have been far, far greater.

Similarly, with regard to the ICC charges against Israel for withholding food from Gazans in the current war, some claim that this never happened. But an alternative is to say that yes, maybe this indeed happened, but there are several aspects of a larger picture to consider.

First is that any such instances are vastly outnumbered by the cases in which Israel went to lengths to provide food and aid, which is quite extraordinary, considering that Gaza is a hostile country. Read up on the 1990 UN Security Council-approved international sanctions on Iraq and you’ll see what the norms have been in less extreme conflicts.

Second is that this war as a whole is a case of a terrible crime inflicted by Hamas upon Israel, a genocidal war by a terrorist organization which is funded by a country whose declared goal is to destroy Israel. For the ICC to go after Israeli leaders, with a token “even-handedness” against Hamas leaders who will never suffer any consequences as a result (especially since they are dead), and saying nothing at all about Iran, is disgraceful and an utter injustice. Hamas and Iran are cheering this, because it helps them.

Third is that the even bigger picture is that the ICC is no more about enforcing justice in the world than is the UN. The UN’s condemnations of Israel, which are more than those of every other country in the world put together, reflect the absurdness of Israelopathy - the pathological and irrational obsession with demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. Likewise, the ICC’s decision to investigate Israel, while ignoring countless vastly greater crimes taking place around the world, including those of countries whose goal is to destroy Israel, reflects the same Israelopathy and is immoral. Selective application of justice, ignoring the far bigger criminals who are threatening the accused, is not justice.

To quote Stephen Rademaker, former general counsel of the Peace Corps, from an article written several years ago: “…the ICC suffers from fundamental structural defects that have rendered it an obstacle to peace in most of the conflicts in which it has inserted itself… There has been a growing recognition that the ICC is a broken institution in desperate need of repair.”

Meanwhile, I’m rarely on Twitter, but I will leave you with my contribution from a few days ago: