Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Showing posts with label subjectivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subjectivity. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Unifying Factor: Relativist/Subjective Thinking Reflects Objective/Truth
What is a ball?
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (II)
In regards to the question of “what is the self, what defines or makes us individuals”, the possible conclusion offered (December 1 post) was subjectivity. Moreover we concluded that embracing subjectivity has real, potentially, negative implications. So why do we embrace subjectivity? Perhaps we reject the notion of the objective because of where it emanates from, or what it implies vis vi free-choice?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Unifying Factor: Understanding the “Goldstone Report”
Why Richard Goldstone
The subjective biases that most media outlets are accused of is often the result of their respective audiences who rather have their beliefs confirmed rather than informed.
That being said the dichotomous coverage of the Goldstone report seems to reflect this trend. Either Goldstone is an “evil evil man” as Alan Dershowitz recently stated on Israeli Army radio (01/31/10) or as his daughter Nicole argues, he is a genuine Zionist who loves Israel (Israel Army Radio, 11/16/09). Richard Goldstone had a stellar human rights reputation as a constitutional judge in post-apartheid South Africa, and was the chief prosecutor for both the international criminal tribunals addressing Rwanda (ICTR) and the Former-Yugoslavia (ICTY).
A fundamental question that is often overlooked in this toxic debate is why did the notoriously anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) handpick Goldstone to lead an “independent” investigation into the “Second Gaza War”? Could a Jew be trusted to deal objectively with the only Jewish country, could Goldstone really give Hamas a fair trial? While many argue that it was to create the illusion of legitimacy, the question remains, why was the HRC so certain that Goldstone would return with an anti-Israel verdict?
Gaza and International Law
One way to unravel Goldstone's conceptions of human rights is to apply them to a concrete scenario that reflects a common theme in the larger human rights conversation.
In the Gaza conflict the point at issue revolved around instances when Israel attacked locations used by civilians, for example the UN funded school. The legal question is: "Is it justifiable to intentionally target the school when “militants” use it as a base for firing rockets?" This issue is covered in International Law, specifically the Rome Statute; the founding document for the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In the ICC’s Elements of Crime (2002), specifically those provisions covered in articles 6, 7, and 8, “War crime of willful killing”, is comprised of five elements. The first element is, “The perpetrator killed one or more persons” (p.14). In a foot note the term “killed” is “interchangeable with caused death” In Article 8 (2) (a) (i). Amongst other connotations, this implies that causing a death is akin to willfully killing.
This definition effectively ignores context. The immediate concern is that without integrating specific definitions that take context into account, how can courts possibly make rational decisions? After all, most of us can distinguish between killing in self defense and premeditated murder, how then can international law ignore such important and obvious distinctions?
Intent for Results
Regardless of this obvious flaw in the reasoning this highlights the conceptions that Goldstone propagates. Civilian deaths are wrong, even if there is no evidence of “intent” or “willfulness”. The very fact that civilians could be there, as they have been there in the past, is grounds for not targeting the area, period.
But what is at the heart of this argument? Is Goldstone’s argument that we cannot “know” one's intent and thus intent is irrelevant?
In other words, even if, contextually speaking, Israel did drop fliers and made hundred of thousands of personal calls, we can never “know” Israel’s intent. Perhaps Israel’s real intent was to cover up their crimes?! Thus Goldstone and international law contends that it is the results that count not the intent; context is irrelevant as its consideration implies an evaluation of intent.
Of course, Goldstone's argument is Kantian in nature and anti-utilitarian in practice (the ramifications of which require a completely separate analysis).
This is part of the same trend that asserts the moral equivalency between Israel, a Democratic nation, and Hamas, a theocratic/terrorist regime. That Hamas openly declares its intention of killing and maiming as many Israeli’s as possible while Israel makes, apparently, unprecedented efforts to prevent civilian casualties, is immaterial! The results of Hamas targeting civilians, and Israel targeting militants shooting indiscriminately, are the same, civilians are killed.
Objective Law
However this analysis does not in itself expose Goldstone's thought process. What is at stake here, Goldstone implicitly argues, are universal human rights which require an “objective” foundation, rules that declare killing (human rights in general) as wrong. Because if there is no one universal and absolute truth, i.e. “killing is wrong”, then how can international community prevent the advent of the Hitler or Stalin who develop subjective intent-based arguments to justify the worst atrocities.
We on the other side must question the International community. Are they justified in ignoring real contextual issues in order to prevent even larger Human rights abuses? Can intent never be evaluated based on context, after all most laws are? Finally for the Israeli, the Jew, and the man with moral clarity the question is should Israel be the first and only target of the impractical ideologies of the international community? Yet these pointed questions can only be asked after understanding Goldstone.
For those that dispute the relevance of this analysis, consider that the Goldstone report is unique only so far as its mandate; its underlying reasoning and conclusions are as old as Israel itself. Perhaps, by understanding Goldstone on his terms we, the Jewish community, can be better prepared for the inevitable repeat of the Goldstone phenomenon.
The subjective biases that most media outlets are accused of is often the result of their respective audiences who rather have their beliefs confirmed rather than informed.
That being said the dichotomous coverage of the Goldstone report seems to reflect this trend. Either Goldstone is an “evil evil man” as Alan Dershowitz recently stated on Israeli Army radio (01/31/10) or as his daughter Nicole argues, he is a genuine Zionist who loves Israel (Israel Army Radio, 11/16/09). Richard Goldstone had a stellar human rights reputation as a constitutional judge in post-apartheid South Africa, and was the chief prosecutor for both the international criminal tribunals addressing Rwanda (ICTR) and the Former-Yugoslavia (ICTY).
A fundamental question that is often overlooked in this toxic debate is why did the notoriously anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) handpick Goldstone to lead an “independent” investigation into the “Second Gaza War”? Could a Jew be trusted to deal objectively with the only Jewish country, could Goldstone really give Hamas a fair trial? While many argue that it was to create the illusion of legitimacy, the question remains, why was the HRC so certain that Goldstone would return with an anti-Israel verdict?
Gaza and International Law
One way to unravel Goldstone's conceptions of human rights is to apply them to a concrete scenario that reflects a common theme in the larger human rights conversation.
In the Gaza conflict the point at issue revolved around instances when Israel attacked locations used by civilians, for example the UN funded school. The legal question is: "Is it justifiable to intentionally target the school when “militants” use it as a base for firing rockets?" This issue is covered in International Law, specifically the Rome Statute; the founding document for the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In the ICC’s Elements of Crime (2002), specifically those provisions covered in articles 6, 7, and 8, “War crime of willful killing”, is comprised of five elements. The first element is, “The perpetrator killed one or more persons” (p.14). In a foot note the term “killed” is “interchangeable with caused death” In Article 8 (2) (a) (i). Amongst other connotations, this implies that causing a death is akin to willfully killing.
This definition effectively ignores context. The immediate concern is that without integrating specific definitions that take context into account, how can courts possibly make rational decisions? After all, most of us can distinguish between killing in self defense and premeditated murder, how then can international law ignore such important and obvious distinctions?
Intent for Results
Regardless of this obvious flaw in the reasoning this highlights the conceptions that Goldstone propagates. Civilian deaths are wrong, even if there is no evidence of “intent” or “willfulness”. The very fact that civilians could be there, as they have been there in the past, is grounds for not targeting the area, period.
But what is at the heart of this argument? Is Goldstone’s argument that we cannot “know” one's intent and thus intent is irrelevant?
In other words, even if, contextually speaking, Israel did drop fliers and made hundred of thousands of personal calls, we can never “know” Israel’s intent. Perhaps Israel’s real intent was to cover up their crimes?! Thus Goldstone and international law contends that it is the results that count not the intent; context is irrelevant as its consideration implies an evaluation of intent.
Of course, Goldstone's argument is Kantian in nature and anti-utilitarian in practice (the ramifications of which require a completely separate analysis).
This is part of the same trend that asserts the moral equivalency between Israel, a Democratic nation, and Hamas, a theocratic/terrorist regime. That Hamas openly declares its intention of killing and maiming as many Israeli’s as possible while Israel makes, apparently, unprecedented efforts to prevent civilian casualties, is immaterial! The results of Hamas targeting civilians, and Israel targeting militants shooting indiscriminately, are the same, civilians are killed.
Objective Law
However this analysis does not in itself expose Goldstone's thought process. What is at stake here, Goldstone implicitly argues, are universal human rights which require an “objective” foundation, rules that declare killing (human rights in general) as wrong. Because if there is no one universal and absolute truth, i.e. “killing is wrong”, then how can international community prevent the advent of the Hitler or Stalin who develop subjective intent-based arguments to justify the worst atrocities.
We on the other side must question the International community. Are they justified in ignoring real contextual issues in order to prevent even larger Human rights abuses? Can intent never be evaluated based on context, after all most laws are? Finally for the Israeli, the Jew, and the man with moral clarity the question is should Israel be the first and only target of the impractical ideologies of the international community? Yet these pointed questions can only be asked after understanding Goldstone.
For those that dispute the relevance of this analysis, consider that the Goldstone report is unique only so far as its mandate; its underlying reasoning and conclusions are as old as Israel itself. Perhaps, by understanding Goldstone on his terms we, the Jewish community, can be better prepared for the inevitable repeat of the Goldstone phenomenon.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (l)
What defines the self?
This question assumes that there is a self, an individual that is separate and distinct from its surroundings. But what makes one distinct?
On the most elemental level, science tells us, we are all composed of the same matter, and we know that the tree, the body, and even, the inanimate (think the stone), disintegrate to the point of no individual recognition.
Humanity often distinguishes itself from other entities, by pointing to its intelligence. But what about that intelligence make us unique? It certainly doesn't distinguish one human from another, on the fundamental.
Furthermore, as science continues its quest for understanding, it is slowly emerging that all entities on earth have a form of intelligence. Whereas we have focused our collective intelligence on technology to improve our existence, plants like the potato have focused their intelligence on diversifying their species. Not just their color, but what that color represents, immunity from a disease that wiped out the mono-crop of Ireland (the “potato famine”). We however, are just as susceptible to afflictions like the bubonic plague!
Many respond that we are unique because we have “reason”. Yet that reason has not prevented our species from acquiring the distinguishing label of “fratricide”.
Finally, some contend that what makes us unique is our subjectivity. I would agree, with the caveat that unique is not synonymous with positive, just different.
If we conclude that subjective is what enables individuality; that unique experiences makes us different, then we should also consider the ramifications of that. After all if it is this element that makes us different, how should we best utilize this differentiation's potential?
Interestingly there is a cultural relationship to subjectivity. That is, Westerners seem to embrace individuality, which as argued here is subjectivity.
We can see the practical consequences of this. Take the media and our institutions of higher education. Both have accepted, tacitly or explicitly, that subjectivity is all that there is. In the media there has been a complete rejection of the objective truth; instead our major media sources openly perpetuate one subjective ideology over another. After all it is what we are, it is inevitable and there is no alternative, let us embrace it! The university is rife with these post modernist notions of truth, or lack thereof. Thus all tradition is questioned. After all, tradition, unifies us and our experiences, and in turn undermines our own source of individuality.
Either line of reasoning leads to a number of provoking questions. For example, should we embrace subjectivity or attempt to channel it? Indeed it in “natural” to be subjective yet it is also “natural” to be passionate. Like passion and the multitude of other drives we have, subjectivity, perhaps, should be channeled.
Another question: Is the embracing of the subjective motivated by the rejection of the objective? If so is it because the objective can only stem from a universal truth, which implies a “higher power”? In other words as our society distances itself from the notion of the omnipotent should we expect more manifestations of the subjective?
Furthermore is the rejection of this “higher power” a Freudian desire to be in control? A “higher power” would seem to deprive us of that control.
Finally, is there really a contradiction between a “higher power” and free choice?
If subjectivity is the one perspective that makes us seem different, and we embrace subjectivity because we reject the “higher power”, then what is really at the root of war and death, abuse of nature, and even an unreliable media!
If revisiting the potential for a higher objective truth, real or otherwise, can unify us…
This question assumes that there is a self, an individual that is separate and distinct from its surroundings. But what makes one distinct?
On the most elemental level, science tells us, we are all composed of the same matter, and we know that the tree, the body, and even, the inanimate (think the stone), disintegrate to the point of no individual recognition.
Humanity often distinguishes itself from other entities, by pointing to its intelligence. But what about that intelligence make us unique? It certainly doesn't distinguish one human from another, on the fundamental.
Furthermore, as science continues its quest for understanding, it is slowly emerging that all entities on earth have a form of intelligence. Whereas we have focused our collective intelligence on technology to improve our existence, plants like the potato have focused their intelligence on diversifying their species. Not just their color, but what that color represents, immunity from a disease that wiped out the mono-crop of Ireland (the “potato famine”). We however, are just as susceptible to afflictions like the bubonic plague!
Many respond that we are unique because we have “reason”. Yet that reason has not prevented our species from acquiring the distinguishing label of “fratricide”.
Finally, some contend that what makes us unique is our subjectivity. I would agree, with the caveat that unique is not synonymous with positive, just different.
If we conclude that subjective is what enables individuality; that unique experiences makes us different, then we should also consider the ramifications of that. After all if it is this element that makes us different, how should we best utilize this differentiation's potential?
Interestingly there is a cultural relationship to subjectivity. That is, Westerners seem to embrace individuality, which as argued here is subjectivity.
We can see the practical consequences of this. Take the media and our institutions of higher education. Both have accepted, tacitly or explicitly, that subjectivity is all that there is. In the media there has been a complete rejection of the objective truth; instead our major media sources openly perpetuate one subjective ideology over another. After all it is what we are, it is inevitable and there is no alternative, let us embrace it! The university is rife with these post modernist notions of truth, or lack thereof. Thus all tradition is questioned. After all, tradition, unifies us and our experiences, and in turn undermines our own source of individuality.
Either line of reasoning leads to a number of provoking questions. For example, should we embrace subjectivity or attempt to channel it? Indeed it in “natural” to be subjective yet it is also “natural” to be passionate. Like passion and the multitude of other drives we have, subjectivity, perhaps, should be channeled.
Another question: Is the embracing of the subjective motivated by the rejection of the objective? If so is it because the objective can only stem from a universal truth, which implies a “higher power”? In other words as our society distances itself from the notion of the omnipotent should we expect more manifestations of the subjective?
Furthermore is the rejection of this “higher power” a Freudian desire to be in control? A “higher power” would seem to deprive us of that control.
Finally, is there really a contradiction between a “higher power” and free choice?
If subjectivity is the one perspective that makes us seem different, and we embrace subjectivity because we reject the “higher power”, then what is really at the root of war and death, abuse of nature, and even an unreliable media!
If revisiting the potential for a higher objective truth, real or otherwise, can unify us…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
