Analyzing Halevi's Boycott Israel Argument and Utilitarianism

Introduction and Overview of Halevi's Argument

The argument advanced by Halevi (2019) in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is that the Boycott Israel movement is misguided because it will not achieve the objectives of those who, like Airbnb, are engaged in protesting Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. The argument is deductive in the sense that it proceeds from a general set of principles and moves toward a specific conclusion. The principles from which the argument is derived are themselves arguable, however, as they could rest on false premises. Both those premises and the overall argument are evaluated in this paper.

The main purpose of Halevi's (2019) argument 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 become more aggressive and adamant in its posture toward the Palestinians, as well as toward 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 willing to "push back" through the influence of AIPAC to prompt the U.S. Congress to act in ways that would hurt boycotters like Airbnb, this is no proof that the boycott itself will fail to bring negative pressure on the Israeli companies that are its target.

Logical Fallacies in Halevi's Op-Ed

In constructing his argument, Halevi (2019) employs a number of logical fallacies, including circular reasoning and the red herring. For instance, he argues that Israelis have done nothing to deserve the condemnation of the boycotters, and therefore they will push back politically, causing the boycott to fail. This is a red herring because the boycotters are not primarily concerned with whether Israelis acknowledge guilt for the occupation of Palestinian land—the boycotters are already convinced of their position and are taking economic action to pressure Israel into changing its political stance.

The argument also makes use of circular reasoning, stating that the boycott will fail because Israelis push back when they feel they are being treated unfairly. This conclusion is essentially the same as the premise, forming a self-reinforcing loop that does not address the reality of those engaged in the boycott or why their position matters.

There is also an appeal to authority in Halevi's argument. He continuously refers to the Israeli collective conscience as an authoritative figure to position Israel as the victim in the conflict. Halevi thus grounds his case in how Israel is being mistreated—by boycotters, by the UN, and by the international community—relying on the feelings of the Israeli collective conscience rather than on factual information. The argument rests on a victimhood status that functions as an authority position within contemporary victim culture, rather than on a substantive evidentiary foundation.

Utilitarianism and Its Limitations

The argument aligns with the philosophical theory of J. S. Mill, who developed the philosophical position of utilitarianism (Stanford, 2014). Mill's utilitarian philosophy holds that to determine the greatest good for society, one should examine how an action will affect the greatest number of people. While utilitarianism may provide a pragmatic approach to the common good and justice, its durability and moral soundness must be called into question. If the "good" it promises is inconsistent with the true good, then the philosophy is ultimately disadvantageous. If it is rooted in the concept of the true good—rather than in utility—then it ceases to be utilitarianism in any meaningful sense. The advantage of utilitarian philosophy is only that of a temporary good, a political peace that cannot last. Its disadvantage is that it cannot lead to the promised end unless it adopts the means suited to that end, which requires a true, objective grasp of virtue—unlike that which is illustrated by Euthyphro in Plato's Dialogues.

Conclusion

A better utilitarian argument could describe constructive alternatives to the boycott, such as peaceful dialogue and the convening of formal meetings between the two sides. This would help to neutralize the conflict because what boycotters ultimately want is an end to the conflict and a fair resolution for all parties. By acknowledging the desires of those doing the boycotting, Halevi could have developed a more persuasive and nuanced argument. Instead, his argument is defensive and lacks a proper utilitarian grounding. It also fails to make an appropriate appeal to the concept of the good, which can best be achieved through the application of a virtue ethics perspective.

Mill would say that Halevi needs to redirect his argument away from the circular thinking that conflates his conclusion with his premise, so that the argument becomes more linear and genuinely acknowledges the aims of those conducting the boycott. This would allow Halevi to both highlight the good and propose a suitable alternative to the boycott he opposes. That alternative would be grounded in achieving the protestors' objectives through better means—means that are less destructive to Israel's economic interests and more conducive to a lasting, just resolution.

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/