The Problem of Fallacies

Analyzing Arguments
Part I
The argument of Halevi (2019) in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is that Boycott Israel movement is misguided because it will not achieve the objective of those who, like Airbnb, are engaged in the protest of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. The argument is deductive in the sense that it proceeds from a general set of principles and moves to a specific conclusion. The principles that the argument is derived from, however, are arguable themselves as they could very well be false premises. They and the argument will be evaluated in this paper.
The main purpose of the argument of Halevi (2019) is to show that the Boycott Israel movement is a waste of time and will not work, primarily because “when Israelis feel unfairly judged, they don’t recoil but push back. And most Israelis are convinced that the call for boycotts is profoundly unfair.” In other words, the state of Israel will only get more aggressive and adamant in its posture towards the Palestinians as well as towards those who protest Israel’s actions. This argument could be legitimately supported by evidence such as the fact that the Senate recently passed a bill that “would allow state and local governments to bar contractors from advocating for sanctions and a boycott” against Israel (Andrews, 2019). However, just because there is evidence that Israel is indeed willing to “push back” through the strong arm of AIPAC to get the U.S. Congress to act in a way that would hurt the boycotters, like Airbnb, this is no reason to prove that the boycott itself will not work in bringing negative pressure on the Israeli companies who are the target of the boycott. In other words, Halevi uses a number of fallacies here to construct his argument. Those fallacies include circular thinking and the red herring.
For instance, Halevi (2019) argues that Israelis have done nothing to deserve the opprobrium of the boycotters and therefore they will push back politically and the boycott will fail. This is a red herring because the boycotters are not concerned with whether or not the Israelis assume guilt for their occupation of Palestinian land—the boycotters are already convinced of their position and are taking economic-based action to put pressure on Israel to change its political positions. The argument also makes use of circular reasoning because it states that the boycott will fail because Israelis push back when they feel they are being unfairly treated. This conclusion is also the same as the premise, so it is really a continuing loop that does not address the reality of those who are engaged in the boycott and why their position matters.
There is also an appeal to authority in the argument as Halevi (2019) continuously refers to the Israeli collective conscience as an authority type of figure to show why Israel is the victim in the whole story. Halevi (2019) thus bases his argument on how Israel is being mistreated by everyone, from boycotters to the UN, on the feelings of the Israeli collective conscience. There is no substantial basis of the argument on factual information but rather on the victimhood status, which serves as an authority position in today’s victim culture.
Part II
The argument aligns with the philosophical theory of J. S. Mill, who developed the philosophical position of utilitarianism (Stanford, 2014). Mill’s utilitarian philosophy is that to determine the greatest good for society, one should look at how the action will affect the greatest number of people. while utilitarianism may provide a pragmatic solution towards the common good and justice, its longevity and rightness must be called into question. If the “good” it promises is inconsistent with the true good, then the philosophy is disadvantageous. If it is rooted in the concept of the true good—rather than in utility—then, of course it ceases to be utilitarianism. The advantage of the utilitarian philosophy is only that of the ephemeral good—a political peace, which cannot last. The disadvantage of the philosophy is that it cannot lead to the promised end unless it adopts the means suited to that end, which is a true, objective grasp of virtue, unlike that which is evinced by Euythyphro in Plato’s Dialogues.
Thus, utilitarianism is not a just way of approaching the common good. It is too weak in terms of defining what it means to be good. The classical philosophers—Plato and Aristotle—are far more valuable in assessing what it means to be good because they approach the concept from an objective standpoint, utilizing a rule and principle in their assessment that is unchanging and applicable to all peoples, whether they are of a majority or minority group. They perceive a true concept of the common good. The utilitarian philosopher, on the other hand, only perceives value in the concept of utility—and the “good” that is defined is based on subjective application, depending upon what the greatest number of people feel to be good (in terms of pleasure and pain).
To improve the argument, Halevi could adopt a virtue ethics perspective to show how the good Israel seeks is consistent with the universal good that all people seek. Or, if Halevi wanted to maintain the utilitarian perspective, he could argue that boycotting Israel actually harms the greatest good because many people depend on the business that Israel provides; and for people to vent frustrations towards a country’s businesses based on socio-political matters that they do not understand because they do not live in the country or experience the problems that Israel experiences is misguided and short-sighted. Instead of adding to the problems of Israel, the boycotters should engage in a more constructive problem-solving tactic, such as hosting dialogues between Israelis and Palestinians so that a true state solution to the problem can be settled. Or they could write their Congressmen to urge Israel to arrive at a solution with Palestine so that the conflict is no longer so troublesome to observers.
This argument would thus take a better utilitarian approach to the problem by showing that the boycott is unproductive, not because Israelis do not feel they have done anything wrong and will only push back harder (an argument that is sure to infuriate boycotters and cause them to push back as well), but because the boycott hurts innocent businesses and others who depend on the products that they make. The argument could then describe a better utilitarian approach to solving the conflict through peaceful dialogue and the hosting of a meeting between the two sides. This would neutralized the conflict because what the boycotters ultimately want is the end of the conflict and a fair resolution for all. By acknowledging the desires of those who are doing the boycotting, Halevi could have better developed a suitable argument. Instead, his argument is defensive and lacking in a proper utilitarian grounding. It also lacks an appropriate appeal to the concept of the good, which can best be achieved through the usage of a virtue ethics perspective. Mill would say that Halevi needs to readjust his argument away from the circular thinking upon which is based both his conclusion and his premise so that the argument is more linear and acknowledges the aim of the side that is doing the boycotting. This would allow Halevi to both highlight the good and develop a suitable alternative to the boycott, which Halevi opposes. The alternative would be based on achieving the objective of the protestors just through better means that are less destructive to Israel’s economic interests.

References
Andrews, N. (2019). Bill to Counter Israel Boycott Movement Passes Senate. Retrieved
from https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-to-counter-israel-boycott-movement-passes-senate-11549402182
Halevi, Y. (2019). Boycotting Israel won’t end the Palestinian tragedy. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-halevi-why-israelis-hate-bds-20190219-story.html
Stanford. (2014). A History of Utilitarianism. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/