Paranoia

Michael Oren ends his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times as follows:

"The real peace activists are those who support our vision of a two-state solution, not those supporting the terrorists bent on destroying it."

This is an obvious either/or fallacy: either you are for peace on Israel's terms (my interpretation of the use of "our vision...etc"), or you are supporting terrorism (if not a terrorist yourself). Mr. Oren goes even further because he also defines what it means to be a "peace activist" with the inclusion of the adjective "real"--anyone claiming to be a peace activist who does not agree with Israel's terms for peace is a pretender or a fake. Mr. Oren's statement does not include--in fact it eliminates--a multitude of other possible ways for peace in the region.

Ending the article in this way belies a paranoia on the part of Israel (if I can assume that the Israeli Embassador to the United States can speak on behalf of a nation). Whether or not this paranoia can be justified is an entirely different matter, and I cannot possibly argue that here. But Mr. Oren's statement does separate the entire world into two groups: those that support Israel, and those that are bent on its destruction.

The world is not as simple as that, Mr. Oren.