Hi. Not seeing a comment link on the IAW article I thought I’d send a note. I think the author makes some important points but leaves open the question of how to properly counteract the tactics and rhetoric of IAW. I agree that pure and simple ad hominem is unhelpful, even counterproductive. However, I am of the view that IAW is effective primarily because they have deftly framed issues in language that shapes any ensuing debate. Israel proponents can only wade in by
addressing "to what degree Israel parallels South Africa", not the best place to start off; it’s like entering a fistfight by letting one’s opponent take the first few swats. In a situation in which one is continually shouted down, it is dangerous game trying to defend oneself against charges of being an inhuman butcher.
I recommend — not ad hominem per se — but a careful reframing of the debate in sound byte-sized slogans. Slogans that inherently demand full-length discourse and answer the "apartheid" charge effectively. At this point I was stymied for a while, because I am no good at bumper-sticker type slogans, myself. But I did think of one, that I’d like to put on a T-shirt, though it’s more general-purpose than just answering IAW:
"Question the Narrative!"
After all, IAW is all about narrative. IAW and similar types of activists are very deliberate about this. I believe it was out of such movements that the current use of the term "narrative" arises. So why not put that into people’s mind right at the outset. Simply putting the slogan into someone’s mind in the context of a discussion of IAW is likely to have them pondering what should be questioned, perhaps for days or weeks afterwards. Especially if some factual information can be bundled with it, in however small sound bytes you get. If you can motivate even a few to cross-check some fact, you’ve come a long ways.
But recently, listening to my current favourite Podcast, Shire Network News, I heard a much better slogan that I think could be used with devastating effect — it’s a new "brand" for the week:
"Israeli double-standard week"
I think it is brilliant because it takes into account one of the weaknesses of "IAW": it doesn’t have the "ring" of a good slogan — it’s begging for something better to come along. "Israeli double-standard week" is admittedly also a bit awkward, but not so as to put it at a competitive disadvantage. It has the advantage that, while IAW is trite by now, "double-standard" is fresh. It is a worthwhile keyword to inject into the conversation, and it provides a much better launching point for debate than "apartheid". Force them to debate the alternative label, rather than you defend against their brand.
There is a minor problem with the slogan, namely that it may be understood as declaring that Israel has double standards. That, fortunately, doesn’t give much ammunition to the other side: what double-standard? What are you talking about? Whereas the assertion that there is a double-standard AGAINST Israel is something easily supported, even in small pieces (which is all you’re likely to get in many fora).
I’ve tried to fix this.
"Israel double-standard week" fixes the reference to PEOPLE, but does not correct the underlying ambiguity of meaning."Anti-Israel double-standard week" is less ambiguous, but is too long and convoluted to work as an effective slogan."Double standard week" fixes both problems but creates a new one in that it is too general.
Anyway, I think the basic instinct of the SNN slogan is correct, and the main problem is one of delivery. "Israeli (or Israel) double-standard week", injected by the right speaker in the right context, makes the point perfectly.
Here’s another thought: Coming from a "social justice" church I will confirm that Israel has a public relations problem in many Christian denominations, some of which have loose ties to the ISM. Again, I have a slogan-like suggestion, which I think will catch people’s attention, if nothing else:
Mimic Jesus’ famous couplets from the Sermon on the Mount. Do not reference Jesus directly, just use the form:
"You have heard it said that X"
"But I say to you that Y"
It’s a pithy and effective way to challenge faulty assumptions and narrative. It can pack rhetorical punch if delivered with some force. Using this phraseology will unmistakably point christian listener’s to Jesus. The famous sermon uses the form to challenge trite sayings with statements that would strike his listeners as inherently, even mysteriously wise (though some were outrageous …you’d have to go home to chew on them). Christians are not muslims;
nobody will be offended by the overt reference to Jesus’ famous sermon. You won’t get death threats for borrowing Jesus’ pattern of speech. More likely you will be admired for your wit and ability to connect to your audience.
Peace, Rob
Dr. Robert Craigen
Mathematics, University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB Canada
204-474-7489 (Dept Fax 204-474-7611)
craigenr@cc.umanitoba.ca
www.umanitoba.ca/science/mathematics