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...

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...…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…