We Jews have been branded (or self-branded) with a number of
names. “People of the Book,” and “The
Chosen People” are two of the most popular, although I’ve also heard us
described as a “stiff-necked people,” a “people of memory,” as well as a
“people that dwells alone.”
But when it comes to verbal jousting with political
opponents, I’d like to propose a different title for our side: A people that
rise to the bait.
To show you what I’m talking about, look at the comment
section of last
week’s Divest This bit on Elder (which
discussed tactical options for fighting the campus wars in an era of
intersectionality). On the surface, I
should have been thrilled that the piece triggered over 60 discussion
comments. But if you look those comments
over, you’ll see that what triggered them was not my original argument but one
of those run-of-the-mill accusations Israel haters routinely throw into other
people’s comment sections, regardless of the original topic covered.
In this case, our visitor reached for the old “Israel as US-aid
welfare queen” chestnut, and no sooner had he posted than dozens of supporters
of the Jewish state rushed to debunk the accusation, presenting facts and
arguments that explained the true nature of American aid to the Jewish state,
while also trying to turn the slur back on the original accuser.
While this defense was both able and passionate, no one
involved in it seemed to realize that (1) they were fighting on terrain chosen
entirely by our enemies; and (2) no matter what facts and arguments were
presented, the original accuser simply ignored them and continued on with the pointing
finger.
It’s no accident that a culture, like ours, which values
disputation and argument births defenders eager to mix it up with
opponents. But when we rise to someone
else’s bait (which we do time and time again), it never seems to occur to us
that this gives our foes the power to decide what we get to talk about.
Even as we man the barricades to show our accusers how wrong
and misguided they are, notice that they will never budge an inch from their
original position. And if (usually when)
their original attack has been smashed, they will either (1) bring up a new
accusation, ignoring everything that’s been said before; or (2) slip away and
start the whole shtick over again in the next venue they hijack for their own
purposes.
Given this dynamic, why should we bother making new and
fresh arguments in the first place if we’re willing to let any bozo dedicated
to ignoring them dictate to us the terms of debate?
By endlessly accusing opponents and demanding a response
while never responding to the points of those opponents, Israel’s foes want to
place us in the lose-lose position of either rising to their bait (and thus
handing them control over debate) or saying nothing and letting the
opposition’s accusations stand unchallenged.
I wish I could offer a no-fail way of handling such
situations (which have arisen dozens of times during my many years of
blogging). One useful technique is to
promise an opponent an immediate answer to their challenge once they either
respond to the original blog post or admit (either directly or through silence)
they are in full agreement with my original points. Another is to point out the dynamic described
above and insist that the accuser’s days of acting as prosecutor, judge, jury
and hangman are over.
Whatever you choose to do, always keep in mind that once
you’ve moved the discussion to a topic of your opponent’s choosing, you have
already limited the best-case scenario to not losing, rather than winning the
argument.