| Tips
for arguing about the Arab-Israel conflict
Home
> Resources > How
to be an effective advocate > Tips for arguing
Although we, as Australian Christians who support Israel, know that Israel possesses the most moral army in the world (can you imagine Australia acting with such restraint if it were faced with the same choices?), as we become known in our communities as people who stand with Israel, we will frequently be challenged in conversations by others who disagree.
As distasteful as it may be, when faced with such
a challenge, we have three options; to change the subject, to
concede that the challenger is correct, or to defend Israel. Different
social situations will demand different responses. This being
the case, there will be situations in which we will choose to
defend Israel. As such, this page might be helpful, as it gives
tips on how to argue effectively when defending Israel from unfair
criticism.
There are always two ways to beat an accusation,
and which way you choose depends on with whom you're talking and
- sometimes more importantly - who is listening. The two ways
are defensive and offensive.
Defensive means addressing the accusations that
have been made (e.g. "Israel is a racist state" - no it's not,
everyone in Israel has equal rights).
Offensive means twisting the argument, to attack
the arguments of the accuser (e.g. "Israel is a racist state"
- if it's so racist, why are Arabs in parliament and on the national
soccer team, and why aren't Jews allowed to live in the Palestinian
Authority when Arabs are allowed to live in Israel?)
Most advocates for Israel choose the defensive
option when faced with allegations of alleged Israeli wrongdoing.
If the answer is long it will be boring. Moreover - and this is
important - sometimes people only remember the question/accusation.
For example, if someone asks you, 'when was the
last time you hit your wife?,' the initial reaction a third person
might have is, 'he hits his wife?!' You will, of course, say 'never!'
- but if the listener doesn't know you, the accusation might have
stuck in the listener's mind, and you are thus already losing
the argument. Offence is often better than defence, but
not always.
Some tips for arguing
When attacking your opponent's arguments, never
attack your opponent. It is a fine line and you have to be careful
not to cross it.
The trick to defeating arguments is twisting the
question to say what you want to say. It often doesn't matter
if you haven't fully answered someone, as long as you got across the message
you wanted to get across (though this is a fine line - if you're
not careful, it may appear that you're avoiding the subject!)
Never ever make something up. If you don't know
a fact, don't pretend you do - because if someone does know that
fact and proves you wrong, your credibility will be ruined and
nothing you say after that will matter.
If you don't know something, try to avoid it.
If you can't, admit that you don't know it and try to twist the
argument to a subject you're more familiar with. Then, that night,
find out what you didn't know and think about how you could use
that in a similar argument, so the next time the topic comes up,
you will be well prepared.
The best way to win arguments is by knowing more
than your opponent. There is absolutely no substitute for
knowledge. There are thousands upon thousands of books and
websites you can read. Some of there are here and here. Remember, whenever
the truth of Israeli and Palestinian motives and actions are placed
alongside each other, Israel will always look better.
As pro-Israel people, our greatest weapon is the truth. Our second
greatest weapon is knowing how to use it.
A bad argument will always fail on its own logic.
If someone makes a silly statement, keep on asking questions about
that statement, ask questions about the answer, and
so on. Eventually the person will be forced to admit that s/he
doesn't know, or will start to look dumb because they are twisting
left and right in an effort to make their hollow argument stick.
You can almost always turn an argument back upon itself.
But remember, people can do this to you as well!
Never question someone's personal stories. Someone
might say, 'I was in Palestine and I saw an Israeli soldier beat
up an old Palestinian woman for no reason.' Even if you know that
this is wrong - if you know, for instance, that the person has
never even left Australia, you cannot call that person a liar.
Why? Everyone listening to you will side with the liar (unless
you can prove the lie in thirty seconds or less). The best thing
to do is accept what they say and move on. For example, you might
reply, 'Well, that's terrible. Did you report the incident? Because
the Israeli army has a very strict policy on things like that,
and all incidents are investigated and offenders are jailed. In
the PA, on the other hand, suicide bombers and other terrorists
have schools and sporting events named after them! So Israel jails
soldiers that beat up Palestinians and the Palestinians reward
terrorists that blow up Israelis! Shouldn't we be applying the
same standards to both peoples?!'
For the same reason, use your own personal stories.
Have you been in Israel? Did you see Arabs walking freely on the
streets? Did you see Jewish doctors treat Arab patients in the
hospitals the same as Jewish patients? Maybe you saw Arab doctors
in Israel?
You will frequently have to pursue a type of 'linguistic
triage.' Triage is what casualty staff do when they are determining
who to treat in an emergency. They divide patients into three
groups, the first who will die anyway, so they don't need to be
treated, the second who are lightly injured and thus don't have
to be treated straight away, and the third are the people who
are seriously injured and have to be treated right now.
How does this relate to arguing? Someone might
say a sentence that includes two or three things you would normally
want to respond to. But in a conversation, you won't have time
to carefully debunk each thing. Thus, you have to determine which
arguments you'll ignore, which arguments you don't think you could
easily respond to, and which arguments you feel you can confidently
debunk - and go after those. Take, for example, the sentence given
above; 'I was in Palestine and I saw an Israeli soldier beat up
an old Palestinian woman for no reason.' Here, you have to choose
whether to argue about the fact there has never been a country
called Palestine, or tackle the accusation about the Israeli soldier
beating up a civilian. It's an easy choice, but some choices will
be harder.
In the same vein, if you add two or three arguments into the one sentence you say, your opponent will likewise have to make the choice of what to tackle - which means one or two points you've made in that sentence will go unchallenged.
Don't think you should feel the need to defend Israel 'right or wrong.' Like all countries, she has made mistakes. But on saying that, you should remember the following: Compare what Australia or other Western countries would do in Israel's position; point out the good things Israel has done for the Palestinians, such as improving their standard of living, etc; don't let your admission that Israel has made mistakes distract anyone from the fact it is and always has been a far more moral actor than the Palestinian leadership or any Arab country. For every bad thing people can list about Israel, it's possible to list far worse and more things done by the Palestinians or surrounding countries.
Many pro-Palestinian people use linguistic tricks,
and there is no reason why you can't as well; They say 'wall'
when we all know that it's 97% fence. So keep on saying 'security
fence' or 'security barrier' in all your arguments; When talking
of terror victims, say 'murdered' instead of 'killed;' Talk about
the 'Arab-Israeli' conflict, as opposed to the 'Israeli-Palestinian'
conflict. There are numerous reasons: It was the surrounding Arab
countries that caused the Palestinian refugees to be created and
have done nothing to help them; It was the surrounding Arab countries
that caused the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
to occur in the first place; It is the surrounding Arab countries
that continue to financially support Palestinian terrorist groups;
Saying 'Arab-Israeli' helps give the (correct) effect that it's
little Israel against all the Arab countries, as opposed to a
powerful Israel against the little Palestinians.
People relate much better to things they know
or are familiar with. Israelis and Palestinians are foreign and
far away. Relate terrorism in Israel to what Islamist terrorists
did in Bali and London.
Don't say 'Palestine' - it doesn't exist and never
has.
It's often not worth the bother fighting words
that have already gained wide usage. Most people won't know what
you're talking about if you say 'Judea and Samaria.' If you want
to help people understand the conflict, you've got to use terms
and concepts they are familiar with. If they won't understand
what 'Judea and Samaria' is when you use that term, you'll lose
momentum when you have to explain what it means. People do know
what you're talking about when you say 'West Bank.'
In the same vein, try not to become sidetracked.
If you are trying to make a point (for instance, how the occupation
of the West Bank came about in 1967 - because of a war launched
by Egypt and Syria and joined later by Jordan) don't get sidetracked
by refusing to use the word 'occupation' or the term 'West Bank.'
Doubling back and explaining your reasons for not using these
terms will only confuse someone who otherwise knows nothing about
the conflict. Explain your point about the 1967 war quickly and
simply. Once they understand that, then you can move on to why
you prefer not to use the term 'West Bank.' Make one point
at a time, and ensure your listener understands what you're saying
before you introduce another point.
Don't label anyone anti-Semitic, even if you think
they are. As soon as you do this, you will start to lose the argument.
Remember, don't attack your opponents (even if they really deserve
it!), only attack their arguments.
Sometimes the people with whom you're arguing
about the conflict won't change their opinion, no matter what
you say. If they're the onlypeople in the room, you may as well
change the subject. But if there are other people in the room
listening to the conversation, keep on going. These people might
not join in, because they've realised they don't know much about
the conflict, but they'll listen an learn nonetheless. Sometimes
the messages you're sending aren't intended for the person with
whom you're speaking, but a third person.
In the same vein, never lose you're cool. Don't
raise your voice in excitement or dispair. A third person listening
to your conversation will subconsciously side with the peron who
seems most in control. (At the same time, you can't appear too
dispassionate - we all empathise with the victims of the conflict,
irrespective if they're Arab or Jewish; people must be able to
see that!)
Some examples of offensive and defensive
arguments
I wrote earlier of offensive and defensive responses
to accusations made against Israel. Offensive responses are often
the better response. If you combine offensive and defensive statements,
you'll begin to find your arguments very well recieved.
Zionism equals racism or Israel
is an apartheid state
Accusations
A state that favours one ethnicity over another
is inherently racist
The Israeli occupation has turned Palestine into
South African Apartheid-style Bantustans
Rebuttals (Defensive)
Israeli Arabs have full civil and human rights;
They have freedom of speech and religion and gender equality is
guaranteed by law; They can vote and be voted for; They have Israeli
passports and can use them to travel the world.
Apartheid was a systematic policy of the white
minority to oppress the black majority; Israel gives full rights
to all its citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity
(about 25% of Israelis are Muslim).
Israel has helped the Palestinians, not oppressed
them! Palestinians came under Israeli control in 1967 after the
surrounding Arab states started a war and lost. Since then, Israel
has dramatically improved the standard of living of Palestinians;
In the years after 1967, the West Bank and Gaza Strip was the
world's fourth fastest growing economy; Palestinian GDP grew at
average of 5.5% per year 1968 - 2000. This is phenomenal; Palestinian
life expectancy rose from 48 in 1967 to 72 in 2000; Polio, measles,
and tetanus were eradicated in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after
1967; In 1967, 21% of Palestinians had 24-hour electricity, in
just nine years, this was improved to 92%; In 1967, there were
no universities in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, by the early '90s,
there were seven (there are now 11).
Rebuttals (Offensive)
If Israel is an apartheid state, why are there
Arab members of Parliament? Why is it that the Arab citizens of
Israel have more rights than the Arab citizens of any Arab country?
If Israel is so racist, how come Arabs were voting in the Israeli
elections before Aborigines in Australia were given the vote?
Why are there two Arabs on the Israeli national soccer team? Do
the Palestinians give any rights to Jews? Is that fair?
The 'Apartheid Wall'
Accusations
The Wall is stealing Palestinian land and blocking
access of Palestinians to their fields, effectively annexing Palestinian
land.
It is making life miserable for Palestinians.
Why is the Wall in Paletinian territory - why
doesn't Israel build it along the border?
The International Court of Justice said it was
illegal.
Rebuttals (Defensive)
Only 3% of the security fence is a wall. The rest
is a fence, so calling it a wall is wrong.
The fence was erected only after the PA refused
to stop terrorists entering Israel. In those areas where the fence
has been completed, terrorist attacks have been reduced to almost
nil.
While it is true that some Palestinian farmers
have had reduced access to their fields, all those affected go
through gates in the fence opened for them by Israel.
The border between Israel and the West Bank is
called the 'Green Line,' though it is not an actual border, but
rather a temporary armistice line from the 1949 Israel-Jordanian
Armistice Agreement. It was never an international border and
never intended to be. A permanent border will be decided upon
in an Israeli-Palestitinian final status peace agreement, the
negotiations for which have been started numerous times, without
successful conclusion. There is no legal reason why the fence
should run along the armistice line.
The Geneva Convention allows the fence to be built.
Moreover, the fence can and will be moved in peace negotiations
with the Palestinians.
The fence is a passive defence. It just sits there,
stopping terrorists, as opposed to army incursions into Palestinian
towns to arrest terrorists, in which Palestinian civilians are
often accidentally hurt.
The 3% of the wall that is actually a wall is
in the urban areas. The rural areas have a fence. What's the difference?
Palestinians fire bullets at Israeli houses and cars. Both a fence
and a wall stop suicide bombers, but only a wall stops bullets.
The ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel. Its ruling
was flawed for numerous reasons; One of the judges, from Egypt,
had already written and made public his views of the security
fence - thus he was not neutral upon entering the hearing; The
UN General Assembly resolution that led to the court hearing prejudged
the verdict. It didn't ask the court to look at the issue, but
rather to judge the ramifications of the illegal barrier (though
the UN General Assembly has no right to comment on or create international
law, which includes labelling the fence legal or otherwise; The
ICJ had to follow the direction given it by the General Assembly,
which means the court had to declare the fence illegal, despite
the fact that it isn't; The ICJ refused to mention in its findings
the reason the fence was erected - that is, terrorism - or the
success it has already proven to be.
The Israeli court system has heard many cases
brought by Palestinians regarding the route of the fence. On many
occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the fence adversely
affected Palestinian lives and ordered the army to change the
route of the fence. More than half of the claims brought by Palestinians
(yes! Palestinians, despite not being citizens of Israel, can
petition directly to the Israeli Supreme Court on government or
army decisions affecting their lives) have asked that the fence
be pushed further into the West Bank. That is, Palestinians themselves
want to be on the Israeli side.
Rebuttals (Offensive)
So you don't want the fence? That means Israel
will have to launch missiles at Palestinian terrorists. You don't
like that? Israel will have to go into Palestinian towns to arrest
Palestinian terrorists. When those terrorists fire at Israeli
troops, Palestinian civilians might die in the crossfire. You
don't want that? There's no other option! The PA doesn't arrest
terrorists, so Israel either has to arrest them - which can result
in Palestinian civilian deaths, kill them - which can result in
Palestinian civilian deaths, or simply block them from entering
Israel - which is what the fence is all about - and no Palestinian
civilians die. In the absence of the PA doing something to stop
terrorism, the fence is actually the best thing to have happened
to the Palestinians. Having a fence inconvenience some people
(but allow them to live) is a thousand times better than having
suicide bombers kill people. The security fence is the fault of
the Palestinians. There was no fence until they started blowing
up Israeli children. If the PA had have stopped the terrorists,
there would be no need for the fence.
The fence is actually helping Palestinians. In
those areas where the fence is complete, there has been less Israeli
army movement on the Palestinian side, which means fewer checkpoints
and greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians living there.
Thus, the creation of the fence has resulted in a better standard
of living for most Palestinians living near it. Israel has made
clear that when the terrorism stops, there will be no need for
the fence. Remember - terrorism came first, not the fence. If
Palestinians stop terrorism, that's when we can start judging
the security fence.
Why should Israel be a Jewish state?
Accusations
A state that favours one ethnic group is racist
By making Israel a state for the Jews, Israel
discriminates against other religions
Rebuttals (Defensive)
A Jewish state is needed because Jews have never
been safe from anti-Semitic violence. Jews have always known this,
but it took the Holocaust for the Christian world to wake up to
the fact. Since the Holocaust there has been anti-Semitic violence
in every inhabited continent. When this violence has gotten serious,
Jews have had a place to escape to.
Rebuttals (Offensive)
The Palestinian Authority constitution specifically
labels the PA as an Arab and Islamic state. How is that different
from Israel calling itself a Jewish state? Shouldn't we be applying
the same rules to all people? Jews aren't even allowed to live
in the PA - compare that to the quarter of the Israeli population
that isn't Jewish. Moreover, PA law gives the death penalty to
anyone who sells land to a Jew. Isn't that racist?
Conclusions
These tips are just that - tips. Every conversation
is different, and not all these points will be applicable in all
arguments. Moreover, just as knowledge about the Arab-Israel conflict
is essential for making a good case for Israel, so is practise
at arguing. Don't expect to win all your arguments. If you walk
away from a conversation frustrated because you weren't able to
get all the points across you wanted to, make sure you spend time
thinking about how you could have delivered those points more
effectively.
Below are some other accusations frequently made
against Israel - what effective defensive and offensive responses
would you use with these?
- Israel violates UN resolutions
- Israel expelled Palestinians in 1948
- Palestinians resort to terrorism/suicide terrorism only because
they have no other options
| 
