Israel’s Canadian Critics Demonstrate the ’3D’ Anti-Semitism Formula
by Mark David
The 3D Test is a very useful tool for advocates of Israel, since those who hate Israel are capable of fiendish cleverness. I guess that when you have such animosity toward something, you will find any way to attack it, whether directly or indirectly. We see this all the time from such things as the BDS movement, the absurd pronouncements and rulings that frequently emanate from the United Nations and its bodies and agencies, and the annual fantasy week that makes the most specious allegations against Israel.
One of the newest tactics of those who hate Israel is to assert that while Israel has an enviable record (though they would never use that term) in a certain area (such as gay rights), it is all just a cover to “pinkwash” the underlying crimes of Israel against the Palestinians. …
So to bring things back to where I started, and with the utmost and sincere respect to Mr. Sharansky, I would like to propose a variation of the 3D Test to describe the people who propose such ridiculous rubbish.
The first “D” is disingenuous. They are neither candid nor sincere. So, for example, there is no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Jerusalem … and they know it.
The second “D” is deceitful. Not only are they disingenuous, they are deliberately so. They know full well that there is no ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem (where, by the way, the Arab population has only grown since 1967 — when the city was reunited under Israel sovereignty). But they assert so anyway.
The last “D” is devious. They are so desperate to attack Israel, that they will seize any opportunity to promote their warped agenda.
This article by Mark David is where I first heard of Sharansky’s article, posted above. David calls his 3-D test a variation of Sharansky’s test. I see them as complementary: Sharansky looked more toward the higher, strategy, level; David’s test analyzes the tactics used to further the strategies. Among these two tests are several characteristics I know I’ve used in considering the credibility and motivation of criticisms and attacks on Israel, and I suspect others here have done the same: disproportion; double standards (selective outrage); deceit; dis-ingenuity; deviousness.
Do not miss or dismiss Mark David’s article’s sub-title: Legitimate criticism of Israel is not disingenuous, devious, or deceitful.
And no, Trekky, it isn’t silly, it’s just cutting through and ignoring verbal @#$%, red herrings and transparent smokescreens. If the shoe fits, pondering why might be a good idea.