Distorting and Delegitimizing Opponents

Right and Left, Pro- and Anti-Israel

In a previous post, Rome Shmome, I discussed the advisability of going to war against Hezbollah immediately, versus waiting to be in a stronger position. I explicitly did not take sides on this matter. Instead, I made it as clear as I could that while those who want to go to war might well be correct, people such as Ben Gvir seem to be taking this position reflexively and based on religious or political conviction rather than weighing up the pros and cons.

In response, one commentator, a normally sensible person who goes under the moniker Marty Bluke, wrote a flurry of comments in protest. Amazingly, though, he proved my point perfectly. His dozens of comments were all giving reasons in favor of Israel going to war. Not one of them discussed the drawbacks! Even after I pushed him, he was reluctant to discuss the scope of what they might involve.

Meanwhile, when someone named Mark pointed out that Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and missiles while Israel does not have 150,000 Iron Dome interceptors, Bluke responded by asking Mark how he could be “perfectly okay” with having 80,000 people from the North being homeless. Now, I found this phraseology very intriguing. Mark had not said anything at all to indicate that he is “perfectly okay” with such a thing. There is every reason to believe that Mark, like all my readers, is very much not okay with this. It’s simply a matter of whether one is even more not okay with the damage and deaths that one expects to result from a war. So why portray Mark as being perfectly okay with it?

In a similar vein, an email subscriber, Mr. B., wrote to me accusing me of being an “ultra-Leftist.” I replied that it’s rather strange to rate someone as an “ultra-Leftist” merely for being critical of Ben Gvir. After all, the entire Likud, as well as many others on the right, are critical of Ben Gvir. Yet when Mr. B sees someone criticizing Ben Gvir, he reacts that such a person cannot be a Right-winger, or even a centrist, and instead must be not just a Leftist, but an ultra-Leftist!

This desire to portray one’s critics or ideological disputants in the most extreme terms possible is a very harmful and unfortunate phenomenon. And it seems to be widespread.

This was seen in the response to potential VP Josh Shapiro’s backpedalling of his description at age 20 of the Palestinians as being battle-minded and his conclusion that peace is impossible, and who reiterated his support for a Two State Solution. Now, one can criticize that backpedalling on numerous grounds. And one can also criticize the so-called Two State Solution as being a fatally dangerous fantasy with no basis in the reality of what Palestinian Arab culture is all about.

But Fox News described this as Shapiro “apologizing for his pro-Israel views.” And many well-meaning Jews echoed this, describing Shapiro as having adopted an “anti-Israel position” or even as having adopted a pro-Hamas position.

Here again we are seeing an extremist distortion of the position of one’s ideological disputants. While some proponents of the Two State Solution (including some Jews) are certainly anti-Israel, many others (including some non-Jews) are fervently pro-Israel. Rightly or wrongly, they see the Two State Solution as being a necessary way to ensure Israel’s survival.

This can be for all kinds of reasons, including, but not limited to, the corrosive effect of the conflict on our soldiers’ morality, the challenge of an endless conflict with many millions of hostile Arabs within our borders, the problem of controlling people without giving them political rights, and the importance of retaining enough international legitimacy to receive the poitical and economic and military support that we need to defend ourselves against enemies such as Iran.

Now, a person may consider that these concerns are less significant than the dangers of a Palestinian state (though it seems more common that people don’t even consider these concerns). They may well feel, and with good reason, that such a state could well turn into another Gaza. But they should not delegitimize those who take the aforementioned concerns very seriously.

Consider the comment of Shimon Felix, in response to someone who had called proponenents of the Two State Solution “anti-Israel”:

As someone who has lived in Israel for over 50 years, served in the IDF, whose children and now grandchildren served/serve in the IDF, and supports the 2 state solution as, while difficult and problematic, ultimately the only real solution, I would like to ask you to apologize for calling me, and the many Israelis who agree with me, "anti Israel". As you know, there are many here in Israel, patriots all, who think that those working against the 2 state solution, by functionally annexing Judea and Samaria, are doing great damage, and will, ultimately, doom us. I am one of them. But I won't call the annexers anti Israel. Just wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Depending on your views, you might think that Shimon Felix is himself dangerously wrong. But he’s certainly not anti-Israel! He and his family are putting their lives on the line to defend Israel!

I don’t like those who try to use the Three Weeks and the concept of “sinat chinam” to stifle criticism. Criticize those with whom you disagree all you want. But don’t exaggerate or distort their position. And don’t fall into the trap of thinking that if they disagree with you on the way to achieve a certain result, then it must be that they don’t want that result.

We need all the solidarity we can attain. We need all the friends we can get. Don’t distort and negate serious friends who are sincerely trying to help just because they think about things differently than you. You can argue that their approach is dangerously wrong, but don’t delegitimize them.

(Note: And to those who would respond “But you delegitimize the charedim!” I would point out that they are not at all serious friends who are sincerely trying to help - and I would still never accuse them of being anti-Israel.)