by Summary:
This is indicative of a much larger problem than AIPAC. It's the basis of attacks grounded in sophistry that uses invalid logic. The aim is to attack an opposing party or cohort "X." The logic used runs thus. X is against Y. Y has a property. Therefore X is against everyone/everything having that property. This is clearly wrong if Y is not identical to everyone/everything having that property, e.g, being Jewish, which in this instance is not the case. Y is represents only some of those having that property, not all, since the relevant property is holding a policy and acting on it. In fact, those having this characteristic may not all be Jewish. Some are not. Here the political leadership of a country, Israel, and its supporters within and outside of the country, must be
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: AIPAC, antisemitism, critical thinking, politics
This could be interesting, too:
This is indicative of a much larger problem than AIPAC. It's the basis of attacks grounded in sophistry that uses invalid logic. The aim is to attack an opposing party or cohort "X." The logic used runs thus. X is against Y. Y has a property. Therefore X is against everyone/everything having that property. This is clearly wrong if Y is not identical to everyone/everything having that property, e.g, being Jewish, which in this instance is not the case. Y is represents only some of those having that property, not all, since the relevant property is holding a policy and acting on it. In fact, those having this characteristic may not all be Jewish. Some are not. Here the political leadership of a country, Israel, and its supporters within and outside of the country, must be
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: AIPAC, antisemitism, critical thinking, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
Bill Haskell writes The spider’s web called Healthcare Insurance
Bill Haskell writes Funding Public Goods Problematic??? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire
The aim is to attack an opposing party or cohort "X." The logic used runs thus.
X is against Y. Y has a property. Therefore X is against everyone/everything having that property.
This is clearly wrong if Y is not identical to everyone/everything having that property, e.g, being Jewish, which in this instance is not the case. Y is represents only some of those having that property, not all, since the relevant property is holding a policy and acting on it. In fact, those having this characteristic may not all be Jewish. Some are not.
Here the political leadership of a country, Israel, and its supporters within and outside of the country, must be distinguished from the dominant group in the country, that is, people identifying a Jews or having Jewish heritage, especially when this group is not characterized entirely by being associated with the country's political leadership and policy.
It is simply invalid logically to charge that someone that criticizes a particular political faction of Israel under the rubric, "Israel" is biased against Jewishness, i.e., is antisemitic. In logic, this is called "nonsense."
While some people that criticize "Israel" and its supporters may be antisemitic, all are clearly are not, since many Jews also criticize and oppose "Israel" in the sense of Israeli leadership and policy. This would include those outside Israel that support regardless of whether they are Jewish. Some are and some are not.
Moreover, there is no connection with having the property of being Jewish and supporting the Israeli leadership and its policy. Many Jews in Israel and also outside of Israel also don't.
This is false argument mounted by those either ignorant of basic logic, or used intentionally to smear the opposition. In other words, morons or complicit.
Intentional or not, it is an effort to silence opposition based on false cause. It is to be condemned.
The situation of a boycott is somewhat different, but related. It is also similar to imposing sanctions. Both boycotts and sanctions may be imposed on an entire country, affecting all in the country and those connected with it, regardless of whether they support the country's leadership or policy that is being targeted. This penalizes all for the actions of a few. Is that just?
This is a larger issue, too, and affects all areas in which is there is bias and discrimination. These kinds of tactics are in wide use to smear opponents in an attempt to destroy them.
Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
Why The Entire Political-Media Class Just Tried To End Ilhan Omar’s Career
Caitlin Johnstone
also
Mint Press News
Ilhan Omar is Right: AIPAC Influences Congress To the Tune of $4 Million Annually
Whitney Webb
See also
Blaming the Venezuelan leadership and "socialism" for a crisis exacerbated by economic sanctions. Adding insult to injury, those that imposed the sanction then disingenuously offer "aid" without revoking the sanctions unless the government capitulates. And the media amplifies the subterfuge rather than exposing it.
Again the "logic" here is nonsense.
Gregory Shupak
Also at FAIR
Western Media Fall in Lockstep for Cheap Trump/Rubio Venezuela Aid PR Stunt
Adam Johnson
Facts Don’t Interfere With Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President
Joe Emersberger
also
Popular Resistance
RED CROSS OF COLOMBIA: US ACTION TO VENEZUELA IS NOT ‘HUMANITARIAN AID'
Staff, Brasil247.com