Need help with choosing a word in my essay

[iNT]

Im writing a conflict essay based on Megan Stack's novel Every Man in this Village is a Liar

Im writing a sentence which can be largely incorrect due to word choice. At the moment I have =

'This false dilemma arose intentionally as fallacy was used in 1948 to give the Jews a state for itself among Muslim Arab countries'

False dilemma is used by Stack to illustrate how the Israel-Palestine conflict makes people ‘believe one or the other’ is right and that they ‘believe it fervently’. Thus a false dilemma is achieved as union isnt even considered.

However
I am not sure the fallacy is correct... fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.
I am sure those who did help create the nation of Israel oversaw the problems that Israel-Palestine conflict would bring.

I dont want to offend anyone by saying that the Jews did not deserve to be a country in the middle east, however i dont know any other words.

There are a lot of fallacies-
Propositional, quantification, formal syllogistic fallacies. If fallacies is the correct word choice... which would it be?

I know what im writing might be controversial...i dont mean to offend anyone who is of that background im writing this because my word choice might make me seem bias. Help me choose the correct words please

[thaaanyan]

Erm not so sure what I can do for you... i would from the start steer away from using the phrase "false dilemma" i get that it may have been used by Stack, but she contextualises what she's saying/explaining a fair bit. in the context of your sentence, unless your planning to put it in quotation marks and explain it later/ have already *just* explained it, it doesn't feel like it makes much sense and i wouldn't use it.
you're also right in that fallacy doesn't work (maybe 'fallacies were overlooked').

If the point you're trying to get across is that in conflict people believe one thing or another without considering the possibility of social unity, then may be go for something like:

'Stack cautions readers against the dangers of fervent and extreme political perspectives, as this may in turn lead to social disunity and tension. Multiple social groups were vastly divided in opinion when in 1947 -1948 the independence of Israel as a nation state was declared, and indeed the vast polarity in these opinions led to increased social friction and hostility from all parties which in turn may further contributed to the violence of the 1948 Palestine war, and the subsequent 1948 Palestinian exodus.' Or something like this, idk.

And then i'd just go back to the philosophy of conflict or whatever else i was talking about before haha. i don't know, i feel as if the word choices you're going for will unnecessarily complicate the piece, i'd just explain the idea behind the words ('false dilemma,' 'fallacy') i want to use so everything makes sense.

also thank you for attempting to be unbiased. i have a very specific view of this conflict (which i prefer not to air on certain forums) and i'm sure others do as well.
good luck with your piece. hope this helps.

[iNT]

Erm not so sure what I can do for you... i would from the start steer away from using the phrase "false dilemma" i get that it may have been used by Stack, but she contextualises what she's saying/explaining a fair bit. in the context of your sentence, unless your planning to put it in quotation marks and explain it later/ have already *just* explained it, it doesn't feel like it makes much sense and i wouldn't use it.
you're also right in that fallacy doesn't work (maybe 'fallacies were overlooked').

If the point you're trying to get across is that in conflict people believe one thing or another without considering the possibility of social unity, then may be go for something like:

'Stack cautions readers against the dangers of fervent and extreme political perspectives, as this may in turn lead to social disunity and tension. Multiple social groups were vastly divided in opinion when in 1947 -1948 the independence of Israel as a nation state was declared, and indeed the vast polarity in these opinions led to increased social friction and hostility from all parties which in turn may further contributed to the violence of the 1948 Palestine war, and the subsequent 1948 Palestinian exodus.' Or something like this, idk.

And then i'd just go back to the philosophy of conflict or whatever else i was talking about before haha. i don't know, i feel as if the word choices you're going for will unnecessarily complicate the piece, i'd just explain the idea behind the words ('false dilemma,' 'fallacy') i want to use so everything makes sense.

also thank you for attempting to be unbiased. i have a very specific view of this conflict (which i prefer not to air on certain forums) and i'm sure others do as well.
good luck with your piece. hope this helps.

Thanks for your help

I should have given the background to the false dilemma, at first it was false dichotomy and as i explained that i referred to false dilemma in the consequent ideas.

Thank you for the idea about fallacy.. i have gone with 'This false dilemma arose intentionally as fallacies were overlooked in 1948 when giving the Jews a state for itself amongst Muslim Arab countries'

Yeah i try to not be biased... in my english classroom there are several middle eastern kids and i would like to keep the peace as 'per se' (i should have done latin    )

[meganrobyn]

Thanks for your help

I should have given the background to the false dilemma, at first it was false dichotomy and as i explained that i referred to false dilemma in the consequent ideas.

Thank you for the idea about fallacy.. i have gone with 'This false dilemma arose intentionally as fallacies were overlooked in 1948 when giving the Jews a state for itself amongst Muslim Arab countries'

Yeah i try to not be biased... in my english classroom there are several middle eastern kids and i would like to keep the peace as 'per se' (i should have done latin    )

I don't think you should go with that: it doesn't make any sense from a reader's perspective, a reader as yet uninformed of your thoughts on the matter, so you're just going to have to explain what you mean in the next sentence (or two) anyway. Which renders the existing sentence unnecessary.

I feel like you're trying to get the sentence to sound like a snappy 'summary' of what you're thinking, when what you should be focusing on is explaining clearly what you're thinking. This is a really common problem. Once you've explained everything really clearly, and your audience is 100% filled in on your arguments and thoughts, *then* you can have that snappy summary because you and the reader are on a level playing field re background understanding. Before that point, it's just not doing its job.

My advice is to write a longer sentence (or two) instead of this, and explain exactly what you mean.

Honestly, I can't even suggest alternatives because, even after reading the discussion, I can't figure out what you want to say. Sorry. Because I would try to suggest something. Seriously, though: just prioritise saying exactly what you mean. Specifically. In detail. It's the most overlooked, neglected, undervalued - but totally vital - skill. Especially in Context. First, make a good point; then, worry about sounding fancy. Too often I think we rank vocab over meaning.