My point precisely. Even when its message is vile we can often excuse a rhetorical statement.

I think Jonathan is correct: it’s only true if the same people use a different standard in different case. For example, when US government propagandists focus on, say, Cuba and ignore, say, Saudi Arabia – they sure are hypocrites, but when Cuban exile people focus on Cuba – that’s their shtick, no problem here.

That seems right, but surely there’s another circumstance in which Turkey tactics are legitimate: if people focus primarily on the misdeeds of one group or country, and judge them and find them wanting by a standard more demanding than is normally used for other groups or countries, and furthermore advocate punishments and sanctions not used against other groups or countries, then even if they’ve claimed no universal brief we might question their motivation, and suggest that they get out a bit more and look at the remaining 188, mightn’t we? It’s the double standard that legitimises the invocation of Turkey et al.

True. However, there is clearly a difference between a factual claim and rhetorical statement: ‘the best pizza in town’, ‘the worst president in history’, etc.

Ah, yes. The gospel according to Pope Juan Cole. Just in time for Easter.

Very true. Anybody who talks about Israel in such exceptionalist terms – “the worst human rights violator in the world,” etc. – is obviously a loon.

Of course, Israel is part of the “First World” in every way save geography, so that specific attention is payed to it should not be surprising. Americans and Europeans are likely to hold their peers to a higher standard for both heightened baseline expectations and the “I have a responsibility for my own team’s behavior” thing mentioned upthread – perhaps especially pertinent given the American state’s support for Israel. (Of course, the US props up Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other much-worse-than-Israel regimes in the area as well, so we’re back on square 188…)

Of course, there are times when the ‘189 Fallacy’ is not a fallacy. For instance, if someone describes Israel (or another country) as ‘the only,’ ‘the most’ or ‘the worst’ of anything, then that person has implicitly examined and ruled out the other 188 cases, and citing one of them is a legitimate means of refuting his argument.

Juan Cole in today’s post calls it (or something very similar) ‘189 Fallacy’:

Another stupid thing in Plaut’s GoogleSmear (there are so many) is a typical 189 Fallacy argument. The Zionist Right maintains that you can’t criticize Israeli violations of basic human rights and international law until you first criticize all the other 188 countries in the world.

Turkey, America… no one asks anymore, Abb1. But, of course, had I done so, it would certainly be, uh, not as a slur!

Or better phrased by Lemuel Pitkin:

“Yes, if you’re commenting from the surface of the moon, or maybe from Finland or New Zealand or some such place. Otherwise, No.”

Are you asking if you can call me ‘anti-semite’ when I don’t mention Turkey? Sure you may, no problem. Or you’re suggesting that I use the same rhetorical device sometimes? But if I do, that’s usually to expose my opponent’s hypocrisy, not as a slur; that’s legit, isn’t it?

Thanks.

The problem is that not everything is equal. As I said, there are countries which go around proclaiming that they’re the be-all and end-all of freedom and democracy and human rights, and Saddam-era Iraq wasn’t among them. That’s one difference already. Can Saddam be blamed for hypocrisy on human rights if he doesn’t believe in human rights in the first place?

By the way, when’s the US going to invade Saudi Arabia?