Jonathan Iwry | Getting away with 'murder'

The Faithless Quaker | International issues require serious debate; we can’t let pathos get in the way of logos

By Jonathan Iwry 10/06/14 11:53pm

M y previ ous column was on the importance of saying what we mean. It’s time to tackle meaning what we say.

Last Thursday, Penn for Palestine set out a collection of small black flags on College Green. Each flag was intended to stand for a Gaza Palestinian “who was murdered by the Israeli Defense Forces between July 8 and August 26.”

Am I the only person unnerved by such barefaced manipulation?

Like any sensible college student, I consider myself open to critical debate and respectful of opposing viewpoints. We should be willing to exchange ideas and be receptive to the reasoned objections of others. No Penn student should be afraid of healthy disagreement, which is essential to strengthening our beliefs.

Nor am I opposed to the vigil. These deaths are indeed tragic, and, like Israeli and other casualties, ought to be commemorated. If Penn students choose to hold such a gathering, that’s their prerogative.

But no matter how charitable we are to extreme critics of Israeli policy, the description of deaths in Gaza as “murder” is deceptive — it reflects an unfair simplification of complex political and historical details. Do pro-Palestine activists on Penn’s campus sincerely believe that the Israelis’ actions are simple enough for anyone to write off as outright murder?

This is a prime example of deceptive rhetoric. The most effective tactic for pushing a political viewpoint is to imbue weighty and familiar words with corrupted meanings, taking advantage of language to circumvent logic. Ploys such as these, in Friedrich Hayek’s words, pose “barriers to rational discussion ... which makes any real communication between [parties] impossible.”

Calling Palestinian deaths “murder” discourages objective scrutiny. To a layperson without serious knowledge of the conflict, it presents the situation in over-simplistic, one-sided and emotionally exploitative terms.

For one thing, the accusation of murder yields little insight and discourages scrutiny by those who want to understand the conflict. How many deaths, for example, were accidental, or provoked by local insurgents? How many deliberately attacked Israeli soldiers? On important details such as these, the exhibit was characteristically silent.

The charge of murder not-so-subtly implies that the Palestinians were killed in cold blood — that their deaths were the Israelis’ primary, sadistic objective. Israel considers itself to be fighting out of self-defense, and labeling the deaths murder neglects that essential point in the debate.

Even if one takes the stance that all acts of warfare are inarguably murderous, the demonstration overlooks violence from the Palestinian side, as well as the murders, so to speak, committed against Israelis by terror coalitions.

Take Hamas, the terrorist organization whose official charter explicitly justifies the killing of Jews and asserts Jihad to be the only way of resolving “the Palestinian question.” Their intentions are neither benevolent nor concealed — and come significantly closer to the mark of “murder.”

Even if the casualties on the Israeli side are fewer (thanks to advanced defense technology), the demonstration implies that Israel is committing unnecessary, groundless acts of aggression. Though moderate supporters of Israel might indeed take issue with the behavior of Israeli settlers, the issue is prone to gross overgeneralization.

This isn’t about whose “side” we’re on — it’s about objectivity. This is an appeal to emotion, plain and simple.

Tactics such as these hurt the pro-Palestinian cause, too. They prevent more discerning audiences from taking activists seriously, and prevent strong rationales from seeing the light of day. If there are good reasons to side with groups such as Penn for Palestine, those reasons should be just as compelling without the polemics.

Perhaps these activists really do believe that the killings of these Palestinians qualify as murder. But making such a contentious and one-sided claim without qualification hardly counts as arguing in good faith.

Without a doubt, this demonstration was expected to provoke. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too complicated and serious for any party to resort to emotional tactics.

I encourage the Penn community to be vigilant about loaded language — to prevent rhetoric from obstructing our commitment to honest and reasoned deb at e.

Jonathan Iwry is a 2014 College graduate from Potomac, Md. His last name is pronounced "eev-ree." He can be reached at jon.iwry@gmail.com. "The Faithless Quaker" usually appears every Monday. 

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.