"Ultimately, the moral claims the Israeli government uses to support its actions during this war are empty. They actually reveal Israel's unwillingness to confront the original source of the current violence; which is not Hamas, but rather the occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. "

This seems the crux of the problem. There is no real willingness to deal with the taking of the land in the first place. And not only the areas she mentions; there is the issue of the take over in 1948, for which there is no real redress. There will never be settlement of the problem until that happens. Andrew Prior http://churchrewired.org

Thank you, Neve Gordon.

Finally, not everyone buys the idea of "ethical warfare, particularly when the Geneva Convention is ignored. Read the whole speech that I have selectively abridged below.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090115/debtext/90115-0013.htm

"Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I was brought up as an orthodox Jew and a Zionist. On a shelf in our kitchen, there was a tin box for the Jewish National Fund, into which we put coins to help the pioneers building a Jewish presence in Palestine."

(snip)

"My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count."

(snip)

"The time will come, not so long from now, when [Palestinians] will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel.

It is time for our [UK]Government to make clear to the Israeli Government that their conduct and policies are unacceptable, and to impose a total arms ban on Israel. It is time for peace, but real peace, not the solution by conquest which is the Israelis’ real goal but which it is impossible for them to achieve. They are not simply war criminals; they are fools."

So Israel exercises restraint and teaser bombs...

IT is a pity Hamas does not deploy "teaser" rockets", the ones which do not blow up in Israeli schools.

To be honest my only criticism would be

if one is forced into a war of any sort, the only way to fight it is absolutely, with all the conventional weaponry at ones disposal with the intention of devastating the enemy so they can no longer attack you.

Anything short of that absolute commitment to success and destruction of the enemy is merely an exercise in extending a painful process.

But all I see is the Palistinian POV on telly... it's bias but not to Israel.

Andrew,
The ‘crux’ of the problem, prior to 1948, was the failure of most countries (western and eastern) to recognise the plight of the refugee - the Jewish population was the perfect symbol of such an entity. Instead of the nations offering a place in their own homes for this generally despised people, the guilt of the holocaust led to a second (and second rate) alternative - a Jewish homeland and territory.

Nation states characteristically are expansive (this may or may not be a good thing). This makes your second paragraph naïve, as with the following (albeit well-meaning and perhaps soulful) from your quoted website, "…Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, but the legitimate, democratically elected government of the Palestinian Authority. We may not like what it stands for, but that is no reason for sidelining it…" (Sara Dowse). Yasssin (a main founder of Hamas) has always been noted (until his assassination) for his opposition to the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis. His mantra was, Israel "must disappear from the map". Yassin's declaration that "We chose this road, and will end with martyrdom or victory" alludes to the little gem, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.

It has been hoped by some, the political legitimacy and the accountability that accompanies it might wean Hamas away from violence. But to date, the group has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism (perhaps a deeper shade of the American 'right').

It is a sad indictment on many western commentators who can only do a body-count without understanding the perverse ideology whose pedigree dominates an entire culture. The Gaza ‘solution’ leaves most Israelis under no illusion - they have not won a lasting peace, merely a chance to get on with their lives for a few more years before they have to fight another war. They know that on the horizon looms the ultimate threat - a nuclear Iran.

I appreciate the thrust of the article, but the use of "protesting" as a transitive verb and the cringe-worthy "towing the line" degrades the importance of the message.

The Author has a strange view of History.

-Pre 1948 Jews were BUYING land sold to them freely by Arabs.
-Arabs were working with Jews improving the land. Benefitting from the technology and motivation the Jews brought with them.
-But given that 'multi-culturalism' has not worked, is not working and will never work, as soon as some bright spark Arab agitator spread false rumors about "Jews overtaking/destroying Muslim holy places in Jerusalem"...there was a massacre of Jews in Hebron. see "hebron Massacre"

-The UN offered a partition solution... it was ACCEPTED by Jews and REJECTED by Arabs who then..in 1948 began a war against Jews on their ancestral land,-Israel.

THAT..... repeat THAT....is the crux of the problem.

Neve.. during the period 1939 to 45 Millions of Jews were systematically murdered.. among those Jews were those who actually assisted their Nazi captors.... *think* about that!

ANDREW PRIOR.. better rewire that Church again brother to cater for the self inflicted gunshot wound to your foot as you speak from your moral pulit high high above contradiction..and speak with uplifted voice "Oh Lord.. I thank you that 'I' am NOT like those nasty Jews who took Palestinian land"... errr there is a slight problem with that..both theologically and historically here in good ol Aussie land.
After all.. the Indigenous people simply gave it to us ...right?

Sir Ivor.. you again? still trying to find morally satisfying solutions to problems which have always only been solved in terms of Chairman Mao's dictum "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun"

Or.. From Comrade Lenin "A man with a gun can control 100 people without one"

HERE IS THE TEST.......

All those who can solve:

a) White Australian/Indigenous issues.
b) White American/Indian disposession issues.
c) Invasion of English by Normans issues.
d) Canadian/Indigenous Indian disposession issues.
e) Tamil/Sinhalese issues.
f) Balkan issues
(and so on it goes)... PUT YOUR HANDS UP!

because if can't solve those problems.. what lunacy and level of mental retardation makes you think you can solve the Israeli/Arab one?

Ivor!..I said those who CAN...put that hand down.

Israel and the proposition...selling 'ethical warfare' is a contradiction in terms. I found it more encouraging to hear that some Israelis were prepared to be jailed rather than be bulldozed by a corrupt government. That signals a glimmer of hope to the wider world.

More encouraging too is the rising clamor of a critical angry world...now numbering among its ranks the Vatican and the UN Secretary General himself who's stood in the ruins of Gaza himself and viewed the destruction of UN facilities...drawing near the horrendous thought for the discredited Osraeli government that it's already being quizzed at the bar of international opinion for its war crimes in Gaza.

Barry Cohen, who has to be the front runner for stand up comic of any year....has been absurd enough of late to call for a written guarantee from the new US administration to ensure that Israel is never destroyed. That's Cohen talk for "please can we have another Bush-type open cheque". Cohen has yet to realise that the greatest threat to the survival of Israel comes not from the Palestinians nor the Iranians...but the Israelis themselves...and that Mr Obama has no intention of allowing US Middle East policy to be dictated from Tel Aviv.

Once Israel comes to recognise the right of everyone to exist, others will afford them the same right. Till then, Mr Cohen, hang onto your day job.

relda,

"Nation states characteristically are expansive" no, they are not,at least in the 21st century. Israel is a most unusual nation state, especially one that claims to be a democracy, it is a predator that attacks and displaces its defenceless neighbours. Hamas is a gift to the Israelis, they would have to negotiate with a moderate organization with all that implies. Since Israel has all the weapons violence is easier.

"..the perverse ideology whose pedigree dominates an entire culture" this is a remarkable self -serving generalisation, are you implying that they're all evil and legitimate targets? Israel has forced the Gazans into a ghetto and expelled the Palestinians from the West Bank, I'm not surprised they are infuriated and desperate.

Sir Vivor,

Those gentiles who think that they can expiate the guilt of 2000 years of anti-semitism by agreeing to the loss of Palestinian lives and homeland are moral imbeciles.

Boaz, at some point you really must begin to take some responsibility for potential outcomes of your whack-a-mozzie antics.

>>...given that 'multi-culturalism' has not worked, is not working and will never work, as soon as some bright spark Arab agitator spread false rumors about "Jews overtaking/destroying Muslim holy places in Jerusalem"...there was a massacre of Jews in Hebron<<

Here's a little word substitution that might bring the message closer to home.

"...given that 'multi-culturalism' has not worked, is not working and will never work, as soon as some bright spark Christian agitator spread false rumors about "Muslims overtaking/destroying the cultural fabric of Australia""...there was a massacre..."

You persistently deny that you are that "bright spark Christian agitator", but to me the description fits like a glove.

I am sure that you would be horrified at the thought that you might be the catalyst for interfaith mayhem. But that's exactly where you are headed.

So “R’ was protesting against his own country’s “assault on Gaza”. It would be interesting to learn just what form the ‘protest’ took; there are protests and protests.

The “assault on Gaza” is stupid. The Hamas assault on Israel is what started the whole thing. Rather than detain “R” and the 700 idiots, it would have been a good idea to drive them across the border so that they could be with their terrorist mates.

Gordon’s remark about the media “towing the Government line” and not broadcasting any criticism of the war is right from the crackpot left cave Gordon lives in. It’s one thing to criticise in peace time, it’s another thing entirely to criticise your own country in wartime, particularly when your enemy lives right next door, and will kill you if he can.

And, “…ostensibly logical argumentation”? What would it take this weird woman to get behind the defence of her own country against terrorism! Put her over the border too.

The idiot sneers at the rules and constraints the Israeli army have used, while overlooking the fact that Hamas terrorists kill like the thugs and criminals they are – no rules or human restraint for them; they wouldn’t think twice about killing every Israeli, including Neve Gordon, and they don’t even believe that Israel has the right to exist.

If Neve Gordon can remain loose after the vile anti-Israel rubbish she writes, her student “R” and the other 700 detained must have done something really, really bad

Israel has a more deceitful objective than Nev's exposition.

Israel presents as a democracy with intent of likening itself to western Liberal Democracies.

Liberal Democracies base their existence and practises on two great strands: Greek and Hebrew heritages.
The Greek Heritage ensuses we're dominated by reason and logic and the belief we have control over our destiny.
The Hebrew heritage promotes a belief in justice. That of the ten commandments and of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. We adopt the principles of Christ and reject all he rejected of the Hebrew Old Testament. ie beliefs for which he was crucified.

Israeli system does't adopt the ideas of Greeks, apart from those that assist in maintaining a picture of a democratic Israel. And of course those ideas only and will eventually only extend to people resident inside Israel who agree with Israeli Government policy. The scope of western ideas adopted by Israel do not extend to their neighbours. And of course those two stances are quite at odds with Western Liberal Democracy.

The predominant group in Israel is Jewish. And here is the crux. The Jews of Israel do not adopt the new testament of Christ nor those of his ideas that underpin our western society. They only accept the Old Testament of their bible... in toto. And again that is quite at odds with Western Liberal Democracy.

The system is a hybrid and only exists to ensure support from the west. Of course in the longer term this system will naturally implode as Israel begins to turn on it's own citizens. In the meantime it deceitfully seeks support from a duped west, by presenting itself as western and democratic.

David-Boaz continually references to events and predictions in the old testament and many of these give ample evidence of the divergence from the West. David fails to understand the old testament is the story of the Hebrews and it's predictions pertain only to the Hebrews. It limited relevance to Christians or people in Liberal Democracies.
Israel has the appearance of Democray but it isn't in any way akin to the West.

Just for the record - Neve is a man. Susan P - ed

mac,
Your first point. Yes, I should have said, "Nation states characteristically WERE expansive." Germany and Japan are 20C examples of nation states who had dreams of expansion and racial purity. On the 'other side', Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union were all formally committed to a particular version of civic nationalism, mobilised on the other. Viewed in this way, the crushing defeat of Germany and Japan and the political reconstructions to which they were subjected to by the Allies did spell the ruination of ethnic nationalism - certainly a good thing. The 1960s and 1970s show how the large nation states have gradually lost their invincibility as shown by the multinational corporations and banks who began shedding their national loyalties - i.e. through globalisation (quite arguably, another good thing).

Your second point. Just as I don't generalise 'Zionism' to mean only the socialist "kibbutzim" variety, or the Liberal, the Nationalist or the religious brand, I do not lable a particular person or a people as generally evil, only their ideologies. Zionism was particularly motivated by the desire to escape the heavy persecution of Jews in Europe, in a large part through false 'Christian' ideology.

The infuriation and the desperation of the people that you rightly say live in a ghetto doesn't surprise me either. They have my extreme sympathy - unlike their elected government who, supposedly, are responsible for their welfare.

Onya Leigh, another rant which means nothing, better get runner and the other RWDBs for support, Israel won the battle but lost the war.

relda,

The long and barbarous history of European anti-semitism is not in dispute,however it is not relevant now. What is in contention is who should pay the bill, certainly not the Palestinians, who are determined not to disappear from history.

I have to comment on your last sentence, what I infer from it,is, that the Palestinians are somehow responsible for their situation by electing the wrong gang of thugs. Their situation is the result,ultimately, of Israel's policy,Hamas is a product of that policy.

Dear all who are kicking Israel in the face for its RESPONSE to years of merciless attacks on nearly a million of it's citizens......

WHERE WERE YOU when those rockets were falling? hmmmmm... WHERE?

WHERE were your VOICES raised up against such indiscriminant attacks?

I know one thing.. I know where hypocrisy is...

SYDNEY...where was YOUR voice raised up against unguided explosives aimed at Sderot's kindergartens?

MAC were you writing prolifically in forums and joining anti terrorism rallies, anti war crimes rallies against HAMAS?

JUNE 12 2007

<<During recent fighting in the Gaza Strip, armed Palestinian groups have committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.>>

Hmmmmm... so.. where were YOU MOB when this was going on. Note..these war crimes were against THEMSELVES.. if they are willing to slaughter other Arabs for their 'wrong' political views..how much more will they attack the innocent Israelis in

-Sderot
-Beer Sheba
-Erez
-Zikim
-Gevaram
-Ashdod
-Nir Akiva
-Sa'ad
-Be'eri
-Brosh
-Sde Nitzan
-Tze Elim
-Rahat
-Kiryat Gat
-Kiryat Malachi
-Gan Yavni

and many other areas...

So....where were you hypocrites? Vipers.. emtpy whitewashed tombs.

You were no-where..but ooooh.. ur here today.. speaking about the morality of Israels self defense from your patch of stolen Indigenous ground... aah.. the sweet smell of 'high moral ground'... what a joke!
It's more the vile stench of outright hypocrisy and ignorance.

Pericles.. whack a mozzie ? *click* on "ignore".

John Ryan... when the only people they "lose" to think like you.. it's a small loss, but a greater victory for moral right(self defense) and historical position.(existence)

Oh wait..I'm sorry.. I forgot.. Israel has no right to exist.. better send all those pesky Jews back to the ovens....right? What a side to appear to be on John..... arrrggggh!

Hows life on your stolen chunk of Australia?

A minor comment, but one which goes to the credibility of Neve's article, is the use of the phrase "towing the line...."
Wrong!
If Neve really knew English, he would know that the term refers to the hypothetical placing of ones toes up to a marked point (i.e. position), hence the correct spelling, and meaning of the term, is "TOEING" the line.
Speaking of lines, does this mean he is hoist by his own petard? That's another term used ignorantly.

I have no problem criticising the current Israeli administration's members for committing war crimes; likewise, I have no problem criticising Hamas for committing war crimes.

Australian government relationship with Aboriginal Australians is worth a short digression. Australian indigenous people were recognised by the Australian constitution in 1967, as a result of a national referendum. Overseas readers may be interested.

A reasonable history can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)

The article goes into considerable detail. One paragraph gives good sense of the outcomes of the referendum:

"The overwhelming support [90%] for the ‘Yes’ vote gave the Federal Government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aborigines. ... [F]ederal legislation has since been enacted covering land rights, discriminatory practices, financial assistance and preservation of cultural heritage. The other aspect of the constitutional change, enabling of Aborigines to be counted in population statistics, has led to clearer comparisons of the desperate state of Aboriginal health."

Discrimination still occurs in Australia, against Aboriginals, against other people of colour, against other people.

In late June of 2007, the government of the day sent federal troops into aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory to extirpate all the sly grog merchants, welfare cheats and paedophiles. There was broad public support for this incursion, possibly because soldiers stopped short of burning and bulldozing any substandard housing and shooting and shelling in the general direction of suspected miscreants. Despite the arguable gains made, the government of the day lost the subsequent federal election.

The episode gets a brief mention by Mick Dodson:

"Professor Dodson has been a trenchant critic of government policy towards indigenous Australians.
In 2007, he described the Northern Territory intervention as "storm-trooper tent diplomacy of health providers dressed in battle fatigues"."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24962558-601,00.html

I am waiting for the day when Israeli government policy shows an similar degree of social progress toward the Palestinians it has dispossessed, and a popular move toward reconciliation with other rightful occupants of the Holy Land.

mac,
I believe we should understand egalitarianism and how the secular west cannot come to grips with it. A secular Israel, based purely on current western values, is not likely to be egalitarian, neither is the interplay of a faction ridden Hamas, favouring the rise of armed militias with party control over Gaza’s illegal economy. I would also add, if the whole world is to sing the song of a "peace process", where a Jewish young couple from Melbourne, who has never set their foot in Palestine, has a right to settle in the Galilee, there will always be resentment. If Jews and their descendants are to regard this as their inalienable right in perpetuity, there will never be lasting peace.

Uncannily, secularism nurtures an ultraconservatism within Western state machinery, screeching madly onward towards what has been described by Huntington as the 'Clash of Civilizations.' The Islamic Ummah describes religious morality and universal ethics as absent from the Western consciousness - I tend to agree. According to Mitt Romney, "Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality..." On the social level, Secularism generates a culture of degeneracy, a society of minimal selves, ephemeral lives. Socially, secular societies have abandoned the cultural cohesion based on transcendental human values religion creates. This is what makes secular society fragmented, excluding those it defines as the 'other'. The values of a secular west, as now adopted by Israel, have created this ‘other’ – so tell me, where does any blame truly lie?

Our innate tendency is to differentiate and to discriminate. Peaceful coexistence is hardly a part of our history. It was advocated by Islam as one of its tenets in the name of symmetrical recognition, as stated in the Qur’an. The second tenet is social justice, the third principle or tenet in Islam is egalitarianism. The West, in losing track of its religious base, appears unable to stomach the principle of egalitarianism, neither before God or the law, national or international.

"Our innate tendency is to differentiate and to discriminate. Peaceful coexistence is hardly a part of our history."

This hasn't always been true. In the Middle Ages (circa 800-1400AD) Arabs that settled in Spain were the global centre of academic achievement and intellectual development. Their society had Christians, Muslims and Jews that, although culturally very different, learned to live together in harmony.

Maybe the fact they were intellectually developed/superior was the glue to their racial harmony. The problem in the Gazan conflict is that the ordinary people do not have a positive outlet, cannot smooth over their differences and hence emotions start to fray. Surely, part of the solution to this problem is to get people doing something constructive with their lives in a way where they do not feel oppressed.

Quranic Guidance on Muslim non Muslim relations. (from Chapter 9)

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

How did this 'guidance' translate into real world behavior in Muslim Spain, that bastion of tolerance, harmony and utopian blessing?
Well..for the Franks..here's how it all panned out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

<<While Abd ar-Rahman was pursuing Eudes, he decided to despoil Tours by destroying its palaces and burning its churches.>>

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Isadore of Beja:

Then Abderrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, crossed the Pyrenees, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks. He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordogne, and put him to flight---so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the number of the slain and wounded.

Hmmmm...nope... still looking for that tolerance and utopian spirit :)
cayyyynt find it.

RobP,
I think there is a partial truth in the 'golden age myth', where there were perhaps glimpses of tolerating foreign belief and culture, but any cursory referencing (as indicated by our friend Poly-Boaz), will suggest this as largely illusory. As far as the relationship between Jews and Muslims go, there is no clear scholarly consensus over whether there was truly a paragon of interfaith relations, or whether it was simply similar to the treatment they received elsewhere at the same time. In the latter 6th Cent, the Christian Visigoths of Hispania persecuted the Jews severely; therefore, the Jews welcomed the Muslim Arab and mainly Berber conquerors in the 8th century. The Muslim 'tolerance', however, is unlikely to rank anywhere near along side our idea of 'moderm equality'. After all, as with traditional Christianity or Judaism of that time, how could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.

As "dhimmis", or "protected non-Muslims", Jews and Christians etc. in the Islamic world paid the jizya (a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws), which was administered separately from the zakat paid by Muslims. Perhaps illuminating was the Qur'an's insistence on observation, reason and contemplation ("see", "think" and "contemplate") which led Muslims to develop an early scientific method based on these principles - particularly empirical observation. The 1066 Granada massacre of 4,000 Jews by Muslim's, however, tends to tarnish the illusion of a 'golden' age with its promise of a real and lasting tolerance. This is despite any intellectual prowess that might seem so evident in the greatest of any medieval mind. Ironically, and at a certain point in history, Judaism was the dominant religious force in Jerusalem; Christianity was embryonic and Jews were the persecutors. Christians hoped that Jews would join their new, universalistic faith – but they didn’t.

relda,

I think you have the wind under your wings and have soared too far,
you seem to be arguing against the modern liberal democratic secular state- because it doesn't support an egalitarian society? Does this imply a "Jewish" Israel as the only solution to the problem? I would never support a theocratic or ethnically based state anywhere on this planet. Of course Jews born outside Israel had, and have, no right of "return" or to settle the West Bank, this doctrine was chauvinistic nonsense from the start, however it was sustained by European guilt. By any humanitarian standards Israel should (like Australia) never have been founded, but the damage has been done.

Your argument that religious belief is essential for a moral foundation for humanity has been refuted by philosophers since Classical times. Religious "morality" is in fact a system of (1) dubious rewards and punishments in the next life and (2) barbarous sanctions in this life.

The most pernicious doctrine that threatens the Western secular state is not loss of faith, but cultural relativism.
This is an interesting subject, however it's probably OT.

It seems as though most people posting here have missed the point of Professer Gordon's article. The assault on Gaza is a carefully managed media event (as was the initial US attack on Iraq in 2003, climaxing in GWB's strutting about the deck of the Enterprise, declaring the war to be won).

If the great mass of Israeli opinion is truly behind this latest "stunning victory", I can only wonder how insular, how parochial, how very like the German public of 1935, these average Israelis must be. The monumental architecture and primitive propaganda machine of The Reich has been replaced by newer inventions, it seems. Pitifully, their intent appears just as primitive.

The following link gives access to The Lancet, a world-class medical journal. Dr Mads Gilbert, whose interviews were often shown on TV news reports, has co-authored an article which is available free, on registration. Two other articles are also available at no cost.
http://www.thelancet.com/home

An editorial in the issue, of 17 January 2009) states:

"We find it hard to believe that an otherwise internationally respected, democratic nation can sanction such large and indiscriminate human atrocities in a territory already under land and sea blockade. The heavy loss of civilian life and destruction of Gaza’s health system is unjustified and disproportional, despite rocket attacks by Hamas. The collective punishment of Gazans is placing horrific and immediate burdens of injury and trauma on innocent civilians. These actions contravene the fourth Geneva Convention."

Perhaps that's the key to 'ethical warfare' Just keep the slaughterhouse doors well shut, and ordinary folks can eat their hamburgers without seeing the blood and guts. Even the editor of The Lancet finds it hard to believe, so the carnage in Gaza is a prime candidate for The Big Lie.

Nice euphemism mac,
I was offering more a critique on 'the modern liberal democratic secular state', lest we should lose it - to be against this 'state' only decries the freedom that I (and supposedly, most of our population) both treasure and value. A “Jewish” Israel should not be the implication taken from "the cultural cohesion based on transcendental human values [that a] religion creates." The ultraconservatism within Israel, both on a state level and a religious one, has the nurture of a secular government – this alone will not ‘save’ it.

I would suggest it is more a deeper understanding of religious faith that is essential rather than mere religiosity or its belief. I would tend to side with Kant and say that moral consciousness is founded on the rock of human reason and that children need to be taught from the beginning to think critically about moral judgments. Nevertheless, the metaphysical speculation of Plato is important, where reason is not the impartial "spectator of all time and existence."

An important question might be, what is the philosophical relationship, if any, obtained between moral relativism and tolerance? The declaration of human rights occurred immediately after the intolerable atrocities committed during WWII. The globalisation of human rights began when the world was awakened to the crimes committed under one government (Nazi) and consequently judged authoritatively as immoral. States that ignore their adoption of the western nation state, and the goal of modernisation and economic prosperity probably practice cultural relativism - which is in itself a very arbitrary idea. Cultures are rarely unified in their viewpoints on different issues, but those “who hold the microphone” may at least hold the centre stage, for a time (within a liberal and democratic state.

relda,

I'm certainly not against the modern liberal democratic and secular state, believers should support it as well, however,some of them try to subvert it, to their ultimate cost. I'm still waiting for the definition of a "Jewish Israel", you've only implied what it might not be, this is not helpful. To what does your phrase "this alone will not save it" refer to, the state of Israel or its government?

I don't need Kant to tell me that "moral consciousness is founded on the rock of human reason" and there is some evidence that morality, on some level, is inherent in humans and other social species as well.
The relationship between moral relativism and tolerance is obvious, the problem is where to set the parameters, JS MIll's "On Liberty" is a very good read if you want to understand this.

Since the majority of people in non western cultures have no voice, we only hear from their political masters, I doubt if the women about to be stoned to death in Islamic counries for "adultery" or the African arrested and imprisioned without trial take much comfort in the fact that these practices are part of their societies' ancient and rich cultural traditions.Surely you're not as cynical as you sound-- I hope "those who hold the microphone" are always liberal democrats.

PS The Nazis weren't the only industrial scale war criminals, the Japanese committed equally barbarous crimes in the Asia Pacific area and amazingly see themselves as victims of the Allies. That's cultural relativism indeed!

Boaz-polly

What a rant. Who or what has rattled yor cage? Was it my challenge to stopid beliefs?

I'm a sceptic. Name the Israei children killed in all those alledged rocket attacks by Hamas?

Mac,
your argument includes the statement that
"Since the majority of people in non western cultures have no voice, we only hear from their political masters ..."

This suggests to me that you believe that the majority of people in western cultures have "a voice". Care to comment?

As for sceptical Keith, I suggest you browse www.ifamericansknew.org for information about Israeli children killed by Hamas rockets. I doubt they are listed by name, but if you are really interested, you can pursue the topic from there. I'm sure your persistence will pay off.

mac,
We appear to be talking a little past each other as I’m not sure how you get the idea I’m suggesting a “Jewish” Israel – you were the first to use the term in our discourse. It’s something, as explained in my last post, I had no intention of even implying.

When I wrote, "this alone will not save it" I was referring to the both the state of Israel and its government. The government and its people should never forget their founding principles. "The state of Israel will devote itself to the development of this country for the benefit of all its people; it will be founded on the principles of freedom, justice and peace, guided by the visions of the prophets of Israel; it will grant full equal, social and political rights to all its citizens regardless of differences of religious faith, race or sex; it will ensure freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture." As with any western nation, and their similarly aligning principles, they’re often not lived up to. Nevertheless, as a state, and in accordance with its founding principles, Israel has perfect legitimacy, as do all of our national states – I guess you’d agree with this also.

You may not need Kant to state what is perhaps the obvious or empirical, but I think you need refer to Plato, an important founding philosopher, for ‘proof’ on a connection between the metaphysical and your stated “moral foundation for humanity”.

I have little to argue with in your last two paragraphs, except to say you misunderstand my comments and attribute me to being cynical. My reference to "those who hold the microphone" are for those (often vocal) minorities in liberal western democracies for whom the freedom to voice their opinion is at least available – even if contrary to officialdom or popular belief, and one should, initially, hold healthy skeptisism toward and be able to challenge any belief.

Sir Vivor,

Well, yes they do. If they remain silent it's usually due to apathy,cynicism or plain stupidity. Your presence on this site is QED to that proposition,we are indeed politicians' political masters, if we choose. We also have the inalienable right to be ignored completely by our fellow citizens or treated as total ratbags,even if the course of history proves us right.

relda,

Yes we are aren't we, I'll say that I find your writing style sometimes ambiguous, it seemed to me you were implying a "Jewish Israel", point taken.However,I'd still like to make a comment- I suspect that we have, in reality, that type of state. The indulgent attitude of the Israeli government towards the "settlers" is indicative of a divergence from those principles you pointed out.(I'm not sure I'd survive in a state guided by the principles of what I would call "Old Testament prophets" since they favoured genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women).See the problem with religiously based ethics. I'd be interested in the comments of non Jews resident in Israel. I've already indicated I don't dispute Israel's right to exist, but not at its neighbours' expense.

I certainly do not need Plato in this ,since there is no proof at all of the existence of any "metaphysical" world. Supernatural sanctions for our moral code are not required, belief that they are is a fallacy. Now that you have expanded on your previous "microphone" comments, I understand and agree.

Mac, you say that.

"Your presence on this site is QED to that proposition, we are indeed politicians' political masters, if we choose."

(QED - quod erat demonstrandum; a term usually applied to the remorseless logic of mathematical proofs).

But I don't see your case as proven. My participation here about as meaningful as that of a German (or other nation’s) conscript in the trenches during the Great War. How many had an audible voice concerning the flow of historical events, besides Hitler?
Your argument is similar to the assertion that anyone born in the USA can become its president, a dream revivified by the recent inauguration of BHO. But yours is not a logical argument.

I allow the possibility that we are like flowers in a vase: unaware of the hands that placed them there (unless flowers are conscious of florists). We are conscious of each other (unlike, I assume, the flowers in a vase), but are not necessarily aware or willing to allow the possibility of what Omar Khayyam expressed:

"We are no other than a moving row
Of Magic Shadow-shapes that come and go
Round with the Sun-illumined Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the Show"

(Fifth ed. Quatrain 68).
Not quite as in Plato’s cave, but read this excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s Media Control:

"Woodrow Wilson was elected [US] President in 1916 on the platform "Peace Without Victory." That was right in the middle of the World War I. The population was extremely pacifistic and saw no reason to become involved in a European war. The Wilson administration was actually committed to war and had to do something about it. They established a government propaganda commission, called the Creel Commission, which succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the world.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html

The lantern of the mass media is still “manufacturing consent”. That helps me put my democratic "voice" in perspective.

Sir Vivor,

You can't compare your capacity to influence the political process with that of a WW1 conscript, he was constrained by military discipline to conform, you really are drawing a longbow. As I said before, your fellow citizens are not obliged to take you seriously or provide a platform, that's not a restriction of your liberties. Yes, anyone born in the USA can become president, the chances for the majority of the population is vanishingly small, but not zero. The point is that the voters don't want just anyone, there's nothing necessarily sinister.

Omar Khayyam was musing on the meaning of life and Plato was speculating on the limits of human perception in regard to an imagined metaphysical realm. Neither of these texts are relevant to our discussion, unless you regard politicians as existing in another world.

I can't comment on Chomsky as I know practically nothing about US history, apart from Hollywood's version which I doubt is reliable. On the face of it his claims seem overblown.

I don't have any problems in accepting your suggestion that the media is "manufacturing consent",especially where it can feed on prejudices as in the attack on the Gazans, however you are exaggerating its effects, this is where your argument falters.
Consider Lincoln's famous aphorism in regard to "fooling the people", modern media has not invalidated his very wise advice.

Mac,

It's true, as Lincoln said, "you can't fool all the people all of the time."

My opinion is that the mainstream media can fool enough of the people enough of the time, and thus "manufacture consent".

Further along in the excerpt at
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html
Chomsky notes that:

"Among those who participated actively and enthusiastically in Wilson's war were the progressive intellectuals, people of the John Dewey circle, who took great pride, as you can see from their own writings at the time, in having shown that what they called the "more intelligent members of the community," namely, themselves, were able to drive a reluctant population into a war by terrifying them and eliciting jingoist fanaticism. … Much of [the propaganda] was invented by the British propaganda ministry, [who hoped] "to direct the thought of most of the world." But more crucially they wanted to control the thought of the more intelligent members of the community in the United States … . That worked. It worked very well. And it taught a lesson: State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day."

To this very day, in Israel and elsewhere. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/israel-palestinians-gaza-children
where Neve Gordon and Yigal Bronner note that "Hatred is the great winner in this war".

As for my comparison of myself with a WWI conscript, it is the inconsequentiality (with rare exceptions) of such a person that strikes me as germane. Perhaps I should have identified as an ANZAC volunteer, in the opposing trenches. What would I have believed of the Germans?

As for national leadership candidates , they receive the publicity due to champions of corporate interests. Which team you barrack for is a matter of personal taste, and largely academic. Hitler, Rudd, Obama, the upcoming Israeli PM: Short-listed and promoted by “opinion leaders”. I am not so much complaining of sinister process as about criminal outcomes, eg selling "ethical warfare".

Sir Vivor,

Thanks for the link,unfortunately the Guardian article reinforces conclusions I came to long ago. The Israeli predator has always posed as a victim, Israel is not alone of course, the Japanese have also tried this ploy, however, unlike Israel, few people believe them, no reason to "manufacture consent" in their case perhaps.

I like the Lincoln quote, and even in America, the people are no longer fooled by chants of anti-Semitism, whenever the Zionist extremists that head up the Tel Aviv regime and their war crimes are under scrutiny (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Index.asp).

Repeat after me, there are WMDs in eye-Raq, not so!

What is the case is that the land grab continues ...

Interestingly, some predators, like sharks, crocs and snakes do get protected, until they bite a human, much like the Zionist tail has been wagging the American dog. Pity the surfer ...

Let's not forget that courtesy of the invaders, Palestinian children have been at the receiving end of violence for over 60 years (
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt.html)!

In the run up to the latest Israeli election, apparently a third of over 1400 killed in Gaza, were children.

Prior to 1948 the Holy Land was largely Arab (http://files.splinder.com/fc1dd247c944ea92040e8ef41705551b.jpeg), now they are crammed into the Gaza ghetto, or pieces of the West Bank surrounded by Zionist settlements, if not in camps in the region ...
One must admire the Arab spirit of resistance though. Even after 60 years of getting whacked, they still have not given up their right or dream of return.

Why was the Tel Aviv apartheid regime allowed to come to Davos? Time for a boycott in the diplomatic world, business, education, ... after all, if is was appropriate during the Cold War, against South Africa, ...