Comments Elsewhere

“As soon as Hasan tweeted his question, he was instantly attacked by a writer for the Times of Israel and the Atlantic, dutifully re-tweeted by Jeffrey Goldberg, on this ground: ‘Israel’s strike on Syria has been a revealing moment. Some, for example, seem to view Israel as equivalent to Iran.’ . . . One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we’re immune, because we’re superior. . . .The ultimate irony is that those who advocate for the universal application of principles to all nations are usually tarred with the trite accusatory slogan of ‘moral relativism’. But the real moral relativists are those who believe that the morality of an act is determined not by its content but by the identity of those who commit them: namely, whether it’s themselves or someone else doing it. . . . Today’s version of that is: Israel and the US (and its dictatorial allies in Riyadh and Doha) have the absolute right to bomb other countries or arm rebels in those countries if they perceive doing so is necessary to stop a threat but Iran and Syria (and other countries disobedient to US dictates) do not. This whole debate would be much more tolerable if it were at least honestly acknowledged that what is driving the discussion are tribalistic notions of entitlement and nothing more noble.” – Glenn Greenwald Nearly all polemical uses of the term “moral relativism” in current foreign-policy debates are actually attacks on anti-relativist positions, which are being made precisely because what they advocate is *the opposite of moral relativism*. It’s too bad, because words mean things, or at least ought to. See also, here: http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/07/26/pet_peeves/