84. NO TRUE ARGUMENT - How A Basic Fallacy Stops Criticism And Prevents Peace
When the political elites of a country - usually the government - do things which might be considered morally questionable - usually military action of some sort - a standard way of silencing opposition or critique of their questionable acts is to use a patriotic version of the faulty line of reasoning known in philosophy as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. i.e. You can't be a true X because no true X would ever question Y, wherein X stands for the national identity of the government being questioned and Y stands for whatever the criticism is focused on. So, for example, it becomes "anti-American" to question the United States' military invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan at the start of the century ("no true American would dispute the righteousness of the actions taken by its military"). Or "anti-British" to question the United Kingdom's history of brutal colonialism ("no true British person would be anything other than proud of our colonial past"). Also known as an "appeal to purity", the "no true Scotsman" fallacy makes a mistake because there is no actual argument give to defend the position - just the hope that a sense of shame, or fear of exclusion, will silence the critic. "No true Scotsman would reject a vote for independence from the UK" does not present an argument either for or against the case for Scottish independence. It simply threatens a sense of exclusion from those who might identify as Scottish yet have questions about national independence, and through such a threat, might hope to silence them.
That this well documented fallacy remains so effective and so frequently used is one of the frustrating reminders that knowledge of philosophy, and of the mechanics of arguments, is not necessarily a path to happiness or contentedness. Often, it simply means being fully aware that an argument is faulty, but seeing it work to convince people regardless. Philosophy can be depressing…but no true philosopher gets depressed by…oh…
That any government involved in questionable pursuits uses a version of the "no true Scotsman" argument should simply be a truism. Unremarkable. common knowledge. Consider any war ever - jingoism and national pride is always cultivated on the basis that "we" are the good guys and "they" are the enemy and, importantly, the exact same arguments (merely referring to a different "we" and "they") are used on every side. Thus no true German would oppose the vile deeds of the Nazi Party, no true Russian would stand in the way of the revolution, no true Chinese person would critical of the Great Leap Forward, and no true supporter of liberty would support any of those three oppressive regimes. No true Irish person would want to be part of the United Kingdom…unless, of course, you are of the persuasion that no true Irish person would wish for independence. Meanwhile England's mixed response to the coronavirus pandemic has been enabled, in part, by its Prime Minister suggesting that, as "we are a freedom loving people", no true English person would willingly choose to restrict themselves, wear a mask, keep distance, etc., even if it might save another person's life. A similar notion to former President Donald Trump's invocation of American exceptionalism in the face of all known epidemiology when he claimed the virus would be gone by Easter 2020: no true American would worry too much about the pandemic, despite what the scientists say. An idea familiar to the millions in India currently suffering because their own Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, implied that no true Indian needed to be concerned about a resurgence of COVID 19 in the region.
Given what we know - that every country uses this same bad argument to protect against criticism of its misdeeds, and that it is no argument at all - the continued effectiveness of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy as a serious public position is quite mind-boggling. This is especially the case when used, as it has been recently, in relation to Israel. For not only would no true Israeli suggest the settlements on Palestinian land are anything other than fair and legal entitlements, or that the recent bombardment of Gaza is anything other than a necessary defensive response to Palestinian rockets, but apparently no true Jew or supporter of the Jewish faith would suggest such things either. Because to do so - to be critical of the Israeli state as a political or military power - makes you, apparently, not merely a critic of the morally questionable actions of a ruling government, but an anti-Semite too.
The conflation of Israel as a political power with the religion of Judaism, while easy to allege due to Israel’s establishment as a specifically Jewish homeland following the holocaust and the indubitable intertwining of the political project with the Jewish identity, is, nevertheless, equally a fallacy. The actions of a political power - in this case the Israeli state - do not necessarily reflect, even in a democracy, the sentiments of the people who make up the society which they govern, Jewish or otherwise. As a British citizen who opposed my government's unjustified bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan earlier this century, I can sympathise with those Iraqi and Afghani citizens furious at my government but cannot be implicated in my government’s war crimes against them by my citizenship alone. Each citizen is an individual, with their own complex set of beliefs. Likewise, as a Jew (which I am), I do not support the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or recent bombardment of Gaza. To paint "Jews" with a single brush and equate the actions of the Israeli state as the actions of "Jews" is inaccurate, wrong-headed, and part of a longstanding anti-Semitic trope of a Jewish "conspiracy" that paints the Jewish people as responsible for all the world’s ills. However, the Israeli state have been very successful in intentionally encouraging the false conflation of their political project with the Jewish religious identity as a clear extension of the “no true Scotsman” strategy to ensure their actions avoid legitimate criticism. If it becomes de facto anti-Semitic to criticise the actions of the Israeli government, in Palestine or elsewhere, then those of us who are not anti-Semitic will hold our tongues rather than speak truth to power. Indeed, the working definition of antisemitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance - “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews” - also makes the conflation when it goes on to suggest that "rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities". A seemingly non-controversial statement when one imagines smashed windows of 1930s German synagogues or loss of property rights under the Nazis or previous historical pogroms, but one which arguably - and it has been argued - suggests that questioning perceived "Jewish property" in occupied Palestine to be an equal act of anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition continues to give examples which furthers the illegitimate conflation when including "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour" as an example of antisemitism, along with "applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" (other democracies colonized other people's lands, for example, so why shouldn't Israel be allowed to as well?) and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" (despite the fact that, as noted, Nazis did indeed start their extermination of the Jewish people by denying them their property rights, putting them into ghettoes, limiting their freedoms, etc). While the IHRA is right to call "holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel" anti-Semitic, along with "using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterise Israel or Israelis", their valid definitions of anti-Semitism come wrapped within a problematic package of definitions which potentially silence legitimate criticism of Israel as a political power. Criticism of Israel not as a Jewish entity, but as a political actor. And it is this conflation of Judaism with Israel and its politics which has made many groups and individuals hesitant to adopt it. However, it is then argued that no true friend of the Jewish people would hesitate to adopt the IHRA definition. And we are back to where we started: many who have hesitated in agreeing with the IHRA’s total definition, or flat out refused to endorse it, have been subsequently labelled anti-Semitic as a result.
In other words, the extended use of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of the political actions of the state of Israel, has worked very well for successive governments of Israel, and their political allies in the United States (for whom the country is an incredibly useful strategic ally). The fear of being called anti-Semitic for offering any resistance to the narrative of Israeli "defence" against Palestinian "terror" is usually enough to keep critics of the policy quiet. I am, myself, quite nervous about writing this article, for instance. It's not nice to be called anti-Semitic - especially as a Jew! Just as, for a British citizen, an American citizen, or a Scotsman, it is not nice to be called "anti-British", "anti-American" or not a "true" Scot simply because you hold a view in opposition to your country's government and their dominant narrative. As agreed at the start, governments throughout history have known this and used the alienation, shame and embarrassment that comes with such exclusionary language to silence their critics. That includes the Palestinian authorities too. To say that “no true supporter of Palestine would deny Palestinians the right to fire rockets into Israel” is to return to the same old fallacy and get stuck in the same old vicious cycle that is getting us nowhere. It is an explicit propaganda strategy, used by every country in the world, therefore it would be truly anti-Semitic to apply “double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation“ and assume Israel is not using such a strategy intentionally and knowingly. Every other democratic nation does it - they just don’t always have the added entanglement of having a particular faith group wrapped up explicitly with their national identity to perform the double whammy of labelling dissenters both unpatriotic and prejudiced whenever they raise their concerns.
Israelis, Palestinians - humans - all deserve the right to self-determination. The right to safety and security from needless death and suffering. The right to a place they call home and all the other freedoms that come with it. We cannot be sucked into divisive team-sports and name-calling that loses sight of that fact and work not in the interests of bringing peace, but only in protecting existing structures of power. We have to be critical of those power structures which seek to oppress and act despicably and call out their offences whenever they occur, even when doing so will inevitably lead to being called unpatriotic or worse. We have learned from efforts of reconciliation in places like South Africa, Ireland, and Germany, that moving forward requires acceptance that no side is perfect, forgiveness for what has happened in the past, and a willingness to move forward together without constant re-litigation of historical atrocities. That it requires going beyond the binary of “us” vs “them” and giving as well as taking. Making peace with all the ways in which you have been cheated and discriminated against in the past - knowing it will never be made up to you - and ensuring only that it doesn’t happen to you, or anyone, ever again. At this point in such a lengthy historical conflict to quibble over who threw the first bomb and who attacked who first is a dead end.
But as such peace requires those in power to give up their power, it is in the interests of those currently in power for such peace to never come. And thus instead of meaningful solutions and a viable peace process we get the fallacy of “no true Scotsman” repeated conflict after conflict, war after war, side after side. We draw lines in the sand, we pick our team, more innocent people die, and the governments responsible for the unending devastation continue to point their fingers and maintain their control.
And no true humanitarian would be happy with that.
Author: DaN McKee
Buy my book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - HERE
Write for PHILOSOPHY UNLEASHED by clicking HERE