Gaza

The usual tripe is coming forth from the woodwork: Israel is massacaring the Palestinians; Israel has a right to defend itself; the U.N. only complains when Israel fights back, not when Hamas serves the first volley; the occupation is a crime against humanity. Etc., etc., etc.

This disdainful excersize only proves what we all already knew: political discussion is not about rational argument, it's about partisan tribalism. Whenever the lines were drawn, the camps seem clear: Israel can do no wrong, Israel can do no right; the Palestinians can do no wrong, the Palestinians can do no right. But these are reflexive reactionary stances, not positions held consciously. Lip service is high on the agenda for the partisan supporter of each 'cause.' Judging by the actual implications of each position, however, it is opaque that these reservations are nothing more than window-dressing; shrift attempts to placate the great god of pc public opinion.

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (anti-Arabism?) are not the motivations of such narrow opinions, but often are the result. Naivite deludes us into casting motivation in the mold of result. But that simply distracts from the actual issues at stake. Screaming anti-Semitism and Islamophobia when we aren't dealing with intentional anti-Semites or Islamophobes is not only pointless, it is self-defeating. There is no quicker way to make sure that your opinions are discounted as nothing more than over-exuberant red herrings than to consistently miss the point. Where malicious intent is not present, accusation thereof are heard as nothing more than white noise.

But let's not confuse the argument for rational dialouge. Rationality may play a significant part in the dialectic. It helps the natives get from point A to B to B1, B2, and B3. But it doesn't give the support for point A. Obviously this is a stickfigure drawing of how positions and preferences progress. There are mulitple point 'A's in any person's thought that lead the procession. But the gist is rationality is not the name of the game. It's not surprising, then, that rational argument doesn't lead to dissuasion.

This skepticism sounds odd, however. Moral reletavism is just a dangerous as extremist certitude. Moral reletavism buys into certain aspects of the extremist mentality in that it is totalizing and meaning imposing, even if only in negative senses. Extremism says that only one option is viable- it denies your choice. Relativism says that no options are viable- it denies your choice.

In our case, particularly, reletavism seems to offer no help. Saying that the Palestinians and Israelis are equal is meaningless and impractical. Meaningless as it illicts the question why one would bother offering an opinon at all; impractical as moral reletavism never seems to lead to a neutral opinion. If it ever does, the opinion then becomes meaningless. This is not to mention all the absurd vacilation that doubt leads to.

The remaining option, then, is to pick a side and understand why that side was chosen. Not to merely soldier on. Nor to ignore the humanity of the other side. Not to forget the reasons for acting in the first place, but to judge the actions constantly and vigilantly.

Hamas is a terrorist group. That doesn't make everything it does irrational. Israel has the right to defend itself. That doesn't make everything it does permissable.

This is not an opinion. This is the merely the frame. Where the pieces fall is another story.

This is not a call to abandon your post, to throw down arms and to forget brethren. It is not a choice between the extremes of everything being equal, and forgetting the other. It is a choice between totalizing blindness, and guarded reserve. It is a call for rational prudence.