I am ashamed by Canada's stands on the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and call on everyone to lobby for a better Canada and a more peaceful world!
This is not about being pro-Israel are pro-Palestine. I've always maintained the right for an independent Jewish nation, but the Palestinians also have a right to self-determination. This kind of "two sides to every story" relativism is by far the worst cultural consequence of the Enlightenment: the authentic end of this relativism is Heidegger's endorsement of national socialism. We must make ethical decisions based on some concept of natural law, which preserves the priority of intersubjective reason and human dignity. There are ethical decisions, whose validity, not only relies on contextual realities and will, but also comes from apodictic reasoning. No one with a conscience can condone the indiscriminate use of force against civilians, which violates numerous sections of the Geneva Convention. No one can condone unjust imprisonment for personal gain, or retribution which does not match the offense. This violates the form of international jurisprudence in effect since the Middle Ages.
The failure of some, particularly on the left, to approach this crisis wisely is symptomatic of our inability to articulate moral questions with inappropriate language. Alastair McIntyre likened this to this situation of flowers for Algernon, in which the characters only have bits of science but not a coherent system. Without this language, it is impossible to conduct science. Without an analogous language, it is impossible to conduct ethics. Thankfully, we have such a language, articulated by those who worked on the universal declaration of human rights. It is time we use that language in righteous condemnation of Israeli actions.
The international community should not and must not be a war of all against all! By such actions, Israel forfeits the friendship of the international community and proves itself to be willfully defiant of both positive and natural law, and it is worthy of the strongest censure. I am not pro-Israel. I am by no means pro-Palestine; I do, however, decry detestable offenses to human dignity, which harm perpetrator and subject alike. Punishment , as such, looks to the moral good of the person being punished. This is pure vengeance and Israel has no claims to moral superiority or legitimacy, nor does anyone who supports it. Coincidentally, it violates the norms of rabbinic law. I implore my well-meaning "postmodern" colleagues: Rfject relativism and denounce murderess tyranny. I ask those on the left, to put aside deconstruction and the ethics of the inaccessible other for just a little while, and to consider that in this case, Aristotelian-Thomism may be the better option. Who is more revolutionary, someone who defends the weak or someone who beats on the starving for personal gain? History has given the answer. Be revolutionary! Fight for ethics; be constructive not deconstructive!
