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 The monumental architecture and primitive propaganda machine of The Reich has been replaced by newer inventions, it seems.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.