The Motte of "Anti-Zionism" (and antisemitism as its bailey)

It is no accident of history that the development of systems of formal logic coincided with the development of rhetoric. Aristotle’s treatises on both subjects stood as the primary authorities in their respective fields for millennia, which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with ‘The Philosopher’. While Plato (and Socrates before him) showed great disdain for the milquetoast rhetorical tricks of the Sophists, in Phaedrus Plato recognized that rhetoric in the hands of a proper student of philosophy can be a potent force for good in the world, or ‘The Good’ rather. Aristotle being Aristotle, ‘The First Teacher’ greatly expanded on what he had learned at Plato’s Academy and gave it a distinctly Aristotelian twist (peripatetic, if you will). In the field of rhetoric, he developed the familiar tripartite relationship of pathos, ethos, and logos: the three essential components of a proper rhetorical argument, and a tried and true method of persuasion through to the present day.

All of this is to say that rhetorical “tricks” are not always bad. Appeals to authority and emotion are valid methods of persuasion when backed by the Logos. For example, the entire common law legal system is predicated on ethos, with the understanding that though the individual judges of law may err, they tend to approximate the ‘Form of Justice’ over time. Where the “goal” of philosophy is to find the truth, the goal of rhetoric is to convince others of it. Rhetoric is thus absolutely essential to convey what pure reason cannot. After all, to quote Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator (a movie that was essentially a giant middle finger to Nazis…in 1940), “Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities life will be violent, and all will be lost.”

However, when backed by faulty reasoning, it doesn’t matter how good your rhetoric is; your argument is flawed from the ground-up. There is a peculiar rhetorical trick that has become almost commonplace among the pseudo-intellectuals and sophists of today: the “motte and bailey”. The terminology references a Medieval European castle design with two separate parts, the ‘motte’ which was a raised hill with a keep, and the ‘bailey’ which was a protected courtyard next to the motte and could have various buildings, barracks, kitchen, et cetera. In essence, the rhetorical trick named after the motte and bailey castle configuration consists of pretending to defend a modest position—say, that you are merely opposed to the current Israeli government—but then advancing an extremist and untenable position, like that the Jewish nation should cease to exist. Since the position of political disagreement is easier to defend than wishing a democratic country out of existence, it would take the position of the motte. But the arguer is actually defending the bailey of destroying the Jewish nation—they’re just claiming to still be defending the motte.

And once you know the trick, you will see it everywhere. It is not merely confined to the “anti-Zionists” and the “anti-Israel” crowd, though they are the shining shitshow of an example at the moment. When anyone claims to be defending one thing but is actually defending something more controversial, you have a motte and bailey. Sometimes it’s just due to ignorance; other times, perhaps more devious motivations are at play.

It is quite easy to do if you’re comfortable with intentional deception. One need only feign ignorance at the switch and several avenues of attack are available. You can accuse your opponent of conflating the motte with the bailey, when it is you who did so in actuality. “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism; just look at the Neturei Karta and anti-Zionist Jews. Now let me explain why Israel must be abolished from the river to the sea and the Jews—I mean Israelis expelled into the Mediterranean.” You can mock your opponent for not refuting your argument: “What, you think all criticism of the Israeli government is ‘antisemitism’? All I said is that Israel is a fake colonialist state and should be abolished. Only fascists suppress political dissent!”...and so on.

Regarding known and proud “anti-Zionists”, the common claim they assert is that they merely oppose “Zionism” or the Jewish state and not the Jewish people as such; but their hatred towards Jews both motivates and receives power from their association with “anti-Zionism”. Just look at the ecstasy on the faces of the “free Palestine” crowd on October 8th. They were overjoyed that Jews were massacred, raped, and burned alive. This is not merely opposition to the government or nation of Israel; this is outright war against the Jewish people. The ‘motte and bailey’ is just one more tool in the antisemite’s arsenal of lies, hate, propaganda, and ugliness that is designed to confuse and obfuscate the truth; and the truth is that “anti-Zionism” is almost always antisemitic. It becomes so through the actions and the attitudes of those who express it, such as when they pull a ‘motte and bailey’ (notice that anti-Zionism now takes the place of the motte, whereas in the first example it was the bailey; hate is fractal in nature) and consistently use antisemitic rhetoric and arguments when supposedly advancing an “anti-Zionist” position.

I quoted Sartre on antisemites a couple weeks ago and I won’t do it again so shortly after, but it really is the case that antisemites have very little interest in making rational sense. Their claims are absurd, and many know it. They don’t mind saying one thing and doing another; after all, they have no obligation to the rest of us to be coherent in their actions. They don’t have the duty to make sense in the pursuit of their hateful goals, even when their methods are directly counterproductive to their ultimate aim. They just want to hate. It is the raison d'être of the antisemite to hate at any and all costs. And it will cost them everything in the end. Hate always does.

To end, I will continue with the Charlie Chaplin theme and quote yet more from truly one of the greatest films of all time (seriously, if you haven’t seen The Great Dictator, it is the definitive anti-war drama. It doesn’t get more intense than roasting Herr Hitler and his garbage goon squad of weird, crazy antisemites in front of the entire world—in 1940(!)—as big of a middle finger as Jesse Owens bringing home four golds in 1936 Berlin): “Look up, Hannah. The clouds are lifting, the sun is breaking through. We are coming out of the darkness and into the light. We are coming into a new world, a kindlier world, where men will rise above their hate, their greed and brutality…the soul of man has been given wings, and at last he is beginning to fly; he is flying into the rainbow, into the light of hope, into the future, the glorious future that belongs to you, to me, and to all of us.”

🇮🇱 עם ישראל חי