Debating leftists used to be a fun thing to do. Now? Not so much.
At a certain point, both sides end up making the same circular arguments, and the side that is better at debate, wins. That’s usually me.
So sure, I can whup their leftist butts in debate, but what usually happens is this: at a certain point the leftist realizes I’ve trumped his empty argument, says something insulting, and leaves in a huff (virtually speaking that is, this is social media we’re talking).
Debate with leftists? It’s unsatisfying. And it’s boring.
Let’s face it: Ecclesiastes was onto something when he said there was nothing new under the sun.
Everything gets old. Especially the same old debates, over and over again.
So rather than reply to a call for a conversational duel, these days I mostly just yawn and move forward, and let them think they’ve won the match. It’s no skin off my teeth.
Once in a blue moon, however, they get sneaky and subtle and I am duped into thinking someone is actually interested in my opinion.
Like today, for instance.
I shared this article in which Tzipi Hotovely claimed that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent UN address was a declaration that the two-state solution is dead. “Halavai,” said I, and then some random guy I don’t know with the random name of Harry Cohen says:
First of all, was the two-state solution ever alive or just a figment of someone’s imagination?
Secondly, the two-state solution is not impossible. It is a perfect illustration of what your commanders yell at you in basic training. ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????. It can be done if the parties involved really want it…But nobody really wants it so it is not a feasible option.
Thirdly, it’s not that nobody wants a two-state solution; it’s that nobody really wants any solution (except for the other side to just go away). They want it all, and we want it all. Okay, so we are willing to compromise, but not to the unrealistic extent that the Palestinians require. So really, think outside the box as much as you like, but no solution is feasible without both sides willing to accept the other and let each other exist in peace. That’s right around the corner, right? Or maybe not.
Lastly, “Let them become part of us without it affecting the demography and the Jewish majority.” Dying to hear how that one will work.”
So I think to myself: ‘Self? He is either honestly ignorant of the facts, or he doesn’t see how history applies.’
I decide to give him the benefit of the doubt, seeing as we’re in the Ten Days of Repentance and all, and I remind him of the facts. I say to him:
One side agreed, Harry. And did more than that: they voted in favor of partition, gave tacit agreement to losing 75% of the land the Brits promised, unilaterally gave up Gaza, gave away the Temple Mount. And etc.
And that’s when Harry trotted out one of the old standards of leftist debate, that really vacuous argument that can be summed up as the, “That was then, this is now,” debate.
This is the point where the smart person bows out of the debate. Because the leftist is clearly in a delusional state, and nothing you can say will alter his state of consciousness. He’ll keep repeating, ad infinitum: “But you haven’t disproven my point. What are you doing NOW to prove you want peace?”
Safe from view behind my screen I roll my eyes. The ridiculousness of this debate point is so obvious that really: who the Hell wants to even try to screw the guy’s head back on straight?
Because this is how his debate point plays out:
The past doesn’t count because it doesn’t show whether or not we (the Jews) are willing at the present time to give away land for peace. The only way to show we want peace is to give away MORE land here and now. Otherwise, we’re really not serious.
As long as we are not currently engaging in salami tactics, it proves we don’t really want peace now, at the present time. Which means that Harry Cohen is right and I’m wrong, Nyah.
And if I were to say, “Well the reason we don’t give them more bits and pieces of our land is because it didn’t buy us peace. The more we gave them, the more they made war on us,” the answer would predictably be,
But that was in the past.
How do you know that this is what would happen now if you don’t even try to find out? Clearly, if you were really serious about peace and really wanted Arabs to stop killing your people, you’d be willing to give the land for peace idea another chance and give them Judea and Samaria for their state.
Except, no. Really dumb. Because this isn’t a parking meter that needs continuous feeding or else you’ll be in violation. This is about satisfying the demands of a violent psychopath. The more you give him, the more violent he becomes.
But the leftist theory posits that the moment you (the Jews) stop giving in, stop giving away land, you prove him, the leftist, right: you don’t really want peace.
BUT! And herein lies the fallacy: He, the leftist, never calls the other side on the carpet.
He never insists that the other side is accountable for ITS actions.
He never says, “If the Palestinians were serious about wanting peace RIGHT NOW, they’d stop shooting rockets at you. They’d stop throwing stones at you.”
And if Harry were to apply his vacuous debate point across the board he’d say this:
If the Arabs were really serious about making peace, they’d recognize Israel and agree that Israel has given them enough land. They’d stop pretending that they are under occupation and tell UNRWA goodbye, they are no longer needed since there are no more refugees. They’d agree that with an approximately 80% Palestinian population, Jordan is Palestine. They’d stop teaching their children a curriculum of Jew-hatred and they’d stop making claims on every part of Israel.
“They’d stop attacking kindergartens on Maale Zeitim and they’d stop desecrating Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives. They’d stop destroying the Jerusalem light rail trains and tracks. They’d stop throwing petrol bombs at cars in Judea and Samaria. They’d stop accusing Israel of war crimes.
I could go on with this imaginary debate. But why bother? The Harry Cohens of the world hold only one side to a higher standard and that would be his OWN side, that of the Jews, of Israel.
The Arabs get a pass. They are excused time and time again. Because obviously Israel doesn’t want peace or it would give them more THINGS.
Which by the way, it does. Israel gives the Arabs free electricity, truckloads of supplies and money, too. Which the Arabs use to build tunnels and rockets the better to kill you with, My Dear.
Why? I’m not really sure. It seems fairly idiotic to me.
I didn’t bother to point any of this out to old Harry. Because he’ll just keep coming back with his empty claim: “But you haven’t really answered my question. What are you doing NOW, this MINUTE, to show you want peace?”
Okay, Harry. You win. Because really: I just can’t cope with the nonsensical idea that unless the Jews morph into some perpetual-motion, drinking-bird, land-giving machine, they really don’t want peace.
