I came across this article by Herald senior journalist Audrey Young and, hoo boy, I couldn’t help but notice all the logical fallacies, including false premises. I’ve noted all the ones I’ve managed to find but feel free to add any others in the comments.
[…] The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to please Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or to infuriate Israel, although it will do all of those things. It is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza.It is to preserve the viability of a two-state solution, a state of Israel co-existing with a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.”
Appeal to consequences. Here she’s saying that if a two-state solution isn’t preserved by recognising Palestinian statehood then this would be a bad thing. It ignores that recognition should be justified on its own merits.
Every country that has joined the latest international effort to recognise Palestinian statehood has cited that as the rationale.
Appeal to popularity/bandwagon fallacy. Basically your classic: ‘Everybody else agrees and so it must be right.’
[…] “The Netanyahu government’s rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it’s wrong morally and it’s wrong strategically,” said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
“The two-state solution is in mortal danger. It is about to give way to perpetual confrontation. That is something France simply cannot resign itself to,” said France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot.
False dilemma fallacy. According to Davy boy there are only two options: two-state solution or carry on fighting. It completely ignores other possible solutions.
[…] As in New Zealand, the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries, and the United Nations, as the only fair long-term answer to two peoples with claims to the same land.
Appeal to popularity/bandwagon fallacy and false premise. Two for the price of one! First, “the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries” is your classic ‘Everyone agrees’ (again) and ‘the only fair long-term answer’ assumes that a two-state solution is the only viable option.
The alternative, one state of Israel, is one in which the Palestinian quest for a homeland would never be satisfied, one in which Palestinian rights would be subjugated and one in which conflict would be permanent.
False dilemma. Sigh. The ‘there are only two possible solutions’ thing again.
[…] When New Zealand was preparing to co-sponsor UN Security Council resolution 2334 in 2016 – again in order to preserve a two-state solution – he described it as “a declaration of war”.
Netanyahu had already bullied Egypt out of co-sponsoring the resolution, but it passed, and Israel withdrew its ambassador from Wellington for five months.”
Ad hominem. Here Audrey is calling Netanyahu a bully. Now, I get that this is an opinion piece, but even opinions need to be based on facts. What evidence does she have that Netanyahu has already bullied Egypt? We don’t know. She never says.
[…] Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing crisis, New Zealand’s position has remained non-committal about when it will recognise Palestine and to “focus on the needs of the moment”.
It is the classic bob-each-way position of a small state, trying to keep onside with Israel by not recognising Palestine, and keeping Palestinians onside by saying it’s just a matter of when, not if.
But given that Israel has thumbed its nose at the international community and its disproportionate, horrific actions in Gaza, the question New Zealand must ask is whether it is still valid to try to please everyone.
Loaded language/appeal to emotion. I know this is an opinion piece but “horrific actions” is a bit dramatic. Does she mean Israel sending in aid which is then hijacked by Hamas? Or the fact that since the war started Israel has tried to minimise civilian casualties. It’s war, FFS: there are going to be civilian casualties.
In war there is no such proportionality. What was Audrey expecting Israel to do? March in with a bunch of IDF soldiers and kill around 1200 Palestinians and then say all good, we’re now even?
With movement on the issue from a large number of like-minded friends, Australia, Britain, France, and Canada give a small country the cover it might not normally have over such a major shift.
Appeal to popularity/bandwagon. Sigh. This. Again. Just because Australia, Britain, France, and Canada are making a shift, we should too.
No shift is likely without conditions. They could be similar to those accepted by France and Canada, such as commitments by the Palestinian Authority to reform its governance, commit to elections in 2026, exclude any role for Hamas, and demilitarise any Palestinian state.
Good luck with that.
“[…] Peters himself, a former student of Hebrew, has been a hawk on Israel. He was critical of New Zealand sponsoring resolution 2334 in 2016. That meant his strong criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza last year and this year has carried more weight.
It is acknowledged by most countries that the United States and President Trump, Israel’s strongest ally, hold the key to ending the conflict and what happens afterwards.
And because Peters is sympathetic to the Trump Administration and its America First ethos, he is open to accusations of delaying recognition in order to please the United States.”
Guilt by association. Now how did I guess that Trump would be bought up?
[…] Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the recognition of Palestine is a complex issue and will take time to work through.
Actually, it is not that hard. What will be hard is presenting the views of a disparate government to a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel because of its appalling treatment of Palestinians.
Loaded language/appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity/bandwagon AND false premise. Hoo-boy. Three for the price one! First we have emotional language such as “appalling treatment” (without offering any evidence.) Then we have “a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel”, which is not only a false premise, but suggests that the government should just follow public opinion rather than weighing everything up.
In any case the above is irrelevant. A two-state solution is not even a viable solution. Why? Because every time Israel has moved in that direction Palestinians have seized it as an opportunity to fire more rockets into Israel.
Palestinians don’t want a two-state solution. For them it’s just a means to an end – the destruction of Israel.
Is this really the best the pro-Palestine side can do?
Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/recognition-of-palestine-nz-weighs-decision-amid-global-pressure
Kevin is a Libertarian and pragmatic anarchist. His favourite saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
Hmm. Sounds like co-governance in NZ, where there are effectively two states within the same country, based on racial grounds. And like the two state solution in Gaza, co-governance is just a means to an end.
I hope Phillip crump is paying some attention, Kevin. And a day later stuff’s verity Johnson puts on her keffiyeh bikini and assumes to speak for us — to which, my reply is:
Glitter Over Substance: Verity’s Gaza Cabaret.
There she was again: Verity Johnson, Auckland’s high priestess of rhinestones and righteous indignation, perched on her Stuff soapbox like it’s a K Road cabaret stage. The feathers were rhetorical, the sequins recycled from last week’s outrage, and the headline screamed: Swarbrick read the room, we’ve woken up on Gaza.
We, Really? The whole country? Every last sparkie, hairdresser and bloke pulling pints, now fully briefed on Hamas, the IDF, the Rafah crossing and UN aid convoys? Or was that just another burlesque illusion—silk fans hiding the awkward truth that most Kiwis are still more worried about butter prices than Brownlee versus Chloe?
Johnson tells us the “silent majority” has finally found its voice. This is curious, because the silent majority tend not to announce themselves in Instagram captions, Guardian op-eds, or Stuff comment sections. They keep their heads down, pay their mortgages, and mutter at the telly. But no matter: Verity assures us she has her manicured thumb firmly pressed to the public pulse.
She writes of Swarbrick as if she’s Boudicca reborn—striding into Parliament, reading the metaphorical room and scattering tyrants with her moral backbone. What actually happened is that Swarbrick got booted by Gerry Brownlee for yet another performative stunt. But in Verity’s telling, it’s the climax of a freedom opera. Somewhere between Helen Clark quoting genocide at the Gaza border and the Green Party social feed, New Zealand had its Damascus moment.
The trouble is, Verity lives in a rhinestoned republic where symbolism is substance. In that world, “brave, principled governance” means yelling the loudest about a war half a planet away, while calling anyone who disagrees a pen-pushing middle manager.
In that world, Swarbrick is Joan of Arc, and Luxon is a soulless shopkeeper fiddling with spreadsheets while babies starve.
(Never mind the ethnic disproportionality of baby death in nz).
It’s burlesque politics: you dim the lights, turn up the pathos, strip off the boring complexities, and leave the audience gasping at the spectacle. Never mind that Gaza is a geopolitical tangle stretching back decades. Never mind that “taking a stand” in Wellington doesn’t feed a single Palestinian child.
The point is to look good doing it, to strike the pose, to throw glitter over the hard questions.
And that, in the end, is Verity Johnson’s métier. She’s not analysing events; she’s choreographing them. To read her column is to sit front-row at a revue where Gerry Brownlee plays the pantomime villain, Chloe Swarbrick belts the power ballad, and middle New Zealand has apparently leapt from political apathy to full solidarity in a single chorus line. ( the team of five million resurrected).
It’s dazzling, it’s dramatic, and it’s about as grounded in reality as a corset made of fairy lights.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.