Disputed versus Illegal

An ongoing tactic has been the branding of Israeli settlements as “illegal under international law”, while preventing the opposing legal viewpoint from being aired.  As an example, John Lyons, in the Australian, parotted the “illegal” argument by referring specifically to Geneva conventions, while failing to given the counter argument a similar airing… “card stacking” or “denial of fact by omission” is the fallacy used.

So Danny Ayalon’s cartoon expose of the “disputed” nature of the argument, caused consternation amond the anti-Israel troops… as reported in Divest This.

As the article points out, the Israel haters are having a hard time staying “on message” about the evil of Israel, when Syria, Libya and the thousand and one other hot spots are shedding so much blood.  So they desperately cling to the “illegal” gambit, becoming increasing shrill with their cognitive dissonance.

Pin It

Comments are closed.