- https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
"Luke Ford reports all of the 'juicy' quotes, and has been doing it for years." (Marc B. Shapiro)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)"This generation's Hillel." (Nathan Cofnas)
Human rights – the key to all mythologies! (6-21-24)
Posted in Human Rights
Comments Off on Human rights – the key to all mythologies! (6-21-24)
Narrative Contingency and International Humanitarian Law: Crimes against humanity in Cixin Liu’s post-humanist universe
International humanitarian law (IHL) is the term which names, and also conceptualises, the current regime of the laws of war. The name belongs to a particular narrative about the history and purposes of this regime. In the orthodox narrative that was built as this regime emerged in the 1990s, modern IHL was born when Dunant witnessed, with horror, the inhumanity of the Battle of Solferino. Dunant and the International Committee of the Red Cross went on to develop a humanitarian system of law, aimed at protecting the hors de combat and limiting the brutality of war.1 One of the archetypal offences of this contemporary regime is crimes against humanity— that is assaults on civilian populations, whether they occur in international conflict or not. This offence makes the protection of civilians and the value of humanity a more powerful concern than the traditional respect for sovereignty in international law.
The emergence of this humanitarian law of warfare and its shifting interpretation of crimes against humanity, from the Nuremberg Trials until the current day, has been dependent on the narratives that could be told about the law. These legal narratives are often informed by extra- legal discourses, such as strategic, moral, philosophical, or fictional narratives. As the narrative possibilities change, so too does the ethical and aesthetic framework of IHL and, consequently, the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of law. This can lead to dramatic, yet often invisible, changes to the laws of armed conflict.
Critical international lawyers have, overtly or obliquely, acknowledged the importance of narrative as a source of meaning that shapes the interpretation and practice of international law. In their genealogies of the discourses of international law, these lawyers have argued that, although the prevailing narratives make universal claims, they are predominantly Western— arising from Western interests and facilitating Western hegemony.4 Human rights and humanitarianism have not been exempted from this critique.5 They are described as a language which has been shaped by Western concerns and imposed on others,6 a language which legitimates some subjects of history and erases others,7 while justifying imperialist and neo- imperial projects.8 As a result, an important part of the critical approach to international law has involved challenging these dominant narratives with alternative accounts and interpretations of international law.9 Some critical lawyers have sought a form of emancipation in such work— but many are less hopeful.10 They have warned that attempts at counternarratives will always be undermined or co- opted by existing power arrangements.
Moreover, they have questioned whether it is even possible to shape new narratives within international law without adopting Western structures and liberal values. The difficulty of developing new forms of narratives is not just a problem for international law. It affects even the possibilities of the histories that underpin law and legal theory. In Hayden White’s narrative theory of history, the possibilities of historical narratives are limited; only certain humanist approaches will count as ‘History’.13 Thus, IHL may be contingent on narrative possibilities, but it is hard to see these narratives, hard to change them, and even harder to imagine a different range of aesthetic and ethical possibilities.
Cixin Liu’s science fiction epic, Remembrance of Earth’s Past,14 however, gives us an unusual opportunity to explore a vision of what such an alternative international law might look like if it were not based on Western narratives or humanist thinking. Science fiction provides an opportunity to create new worlds and, in Liu’s case, to present new aesthetic forms.
Posted in Human Rights, International Law
Comments Off on Narrative Contingency and International Humanitarian Law: Crimes against humanity in Cixin Liu’s post-humanist universe
Decoding Israel’s Coming War With Hezbollah (6-20-24)
01:00 Caitlin Clark Conundrum, https://www.takimag.com/article/34053/
08:00 Col Douglas Macgregor: Israel Prepares for All Out War in Lebanon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXD8t7gYpTo
17:30 Turkey invades Cyprus with Russia’s blessing if Israel attacks Hezbollah
28:00 Is Israel Committing Genocide? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155365
41:00 Revolutions in International Law: The Legacies of 1917, https://www.amazon.com/Revolutions-International-Law-Legacies-1917/dp/1108495036
44:00 A Short History of International Humanitarian Law, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155471
1:30:00 Hizballah’s historic drone footage sends warning to Israel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-C4rl9LoeU
Steve Sailer recently wrote an excellent column about Caitlin Clark, who has drawn my attention to women’s basketball for the first time. She stands out not only because of her skills but also due to her likable and attractive personality. The WNBA, however, seems uninterested in addressing the issues that make it less appealing.
The NBA once faced similar problems with player behavior negatively impacting its reputation. Back then, league executives took action to change this image, which begs the question: why hasn’t the WNBA done the same? Especially when they have a star like Clark who could redefine women’s basketball much like Michael Jordan did for men’s.
In baseball, changes such as introducing a pitch clock sped up gameplay by 15% in 2023. This kind of innovation is needed across sports to keep them engaging and profitable.
Discussing international politics, there are speculations about Israel potentially escalating conflict with Hezbollah as part of a broader strategic move involving Iran and possibly Turkey. Such developments could dramatically shift regional dynamics and draw in global powers like Russia and the US.
Finally, Caitlin Clark’s success has highlighted differences between male and female athletes’ popularity and earnings potential within professional sports leagues. Her rise reflects how personal backgrounds can influence public perception and marketability in sports.
People disillusioned with leftist politics often seek new utopian ideals, ignoring their practical impact. They discuss human rights as if they’re sacred, without considering real-world implications or the need for careful argumentation.
Humanitarian lawyers and activists speak to believers, neglecting clarity and accuracy. Their field’s influence is limited; credibility is key but often ignored in favor of lofty rhetoric.
For example, in legal negotiations over intellectual property sales, indemnification clauses are critical. A lawyer must be precise and analytical to protect the client’s interests—broad clauses can lead to devastating financial loss.
Similarly, advocates of nascent fields like human rights law must make credible claims since they lack enforcement power. Vague statements won’t convince critical thinkers; only those unconcerned with truth will follow.
Credibility matters when you have no “worldly” power—as seen with early Christians or NGOs facing powerful states today. Human rights groups may raise awareness but have little effect on global conflicts unless backed by strong armies enforcing international law.
Thus, while these organizations strive for peace and justice through humanitarian law, their success depends on support from nations willing to enforce these laws militarily—a rare occurrence that turns idealistic aspirations into tangible reality.
Men tend to be more physically aggressive than women, with statistics showing higher instances of male violence. Men also respond to hierarchy and rules which can keep their aggression in check. Women, when competitive, may not adhere as strictly to rules and might engage in less straightforward tactics during conflicts such as divorces.
If a relationship ends badly, it’s often heard that one party tries to ruin the other’s life. While this can happen with both genders, societal expectations of masculinity discourage men from engaging in such behavior; they’re expected instead to provide and protect.
Different sexes have different strengths; men are generally more rule-oriented in competition while women may dislike competition but respond intensely to nurturing roles. This difference is reflected in areas like international law where humanitarian efforts are seen as more feminine pursuits due to their focus on care and nurturing.
The shift toward a female-dominated approach has affected organizations’ structures too – they operate differently from male-dominated ones by focusing less on hierarchies and more on inclusion within social circles.
Furthermore, fields like economics remain largely masculine while education leans towards being predominantly female due to natural inclinations towards caring for children.
Ultimately, both male upward orientation and female nurturing capabilities are essential across society. However, the rise of feminist perspectives has led some areas of human rights law into utopian realms detached from practical outcomes – driven by emotion rather than tangible results.
Human Rights activists and scholars and partisans may tirelessly to make ends meet while running a successful organization that challenges traditional concepts with utopian ideas. They reject outdated patriarchal and capitalist constraints, promoting international humanitarian law instead.
Their interpretation of the laws of war is strict; they advocate for minimal civilian casualties and limit acceptable military targets and weapons. Human rights groups like Amnesty International report on conflicts with stringent standards, often without legal or factual basis but driven by post-patriarchal ideals.
The rules of engagement have changed: no military gain justifies high civilian losses, making most conventional warfare tactics illegal in this new perspective. The focus has shifted to prioritize human flourishing over strategic objectives, mirroring shifts in societal norms where anything less than optimal conditions constitutes abuse – whether it’s child rearing or wartime conduct.
Israel faces challenges too; despite its past victories, Hezbollah’s improved defenses question Israel’s ability to win effectively on multiple fronts. There are doubts about Israel’s air defense capabilities as enemy drones capture footage over Israeli territory.
Hezbollah has demonstrated power through media operations showing potential strike targets within Israel – an unsettling reminder for Israelis who fear their country’s vulnerability amidst escalating tensions. As both sides prepare for possible conflict, misjudgments could lead to devastating consequences unless there is mutual understanding between them.
Nasrallah warned that 200,000 Israelis displaced could become two million instantly. He highlighted vulnerable sites like petrochemical and oil facilities, power plants, and Haifa airport within the port area.
I’ve condensed a 10-minute video showing Hezbollah’s enhanced capability to threaten Israel from the north. The footage reveals both civilian and military areas in the port of Haifa – a grim reminder of what full-scale war with Hezbollah might entail.
Journalistic Ethics (12-9-20)
I was watching this Mike Fisher video he was he was ranting about Skip Bayless. Troy Aikman, Fox football analyst and former Dallas Cowboy championship quarterback, also said how very disappointed he was that Fox had hired Skip Bayless to do the morning show Undisputed.
And they both both made the bogus accusation that Skip Bayless in his book on the 1995 championship Cowboys team that falsely accused Troy of being gay. And it’s not true. There’s a chapter in it where Skip simply mentions how widespread the rumors were around the Dallas cowboys that Troy was gay, but he made very clear in the book that he that he know no evidence that this was true, He was just shocked that Barry Switzer the coach seemed to believe that Troy was gay or at least was hearing there’s those rumors. So there comes a point where the the accurate reporting of rumors, those is it’s good journalism is is necessary to to understand what’s going on. Skip put the rumors in context, he said I now have no factual evidence for them, but all these people in the Dallas Cowboys organization seem to believe that Trey was gay.
So there’s a night and day difference between the accurate reporting of a rumor and pointing out that there’s no factual evidence for it versus making the allegation of the rumor.
So that that led me to getting into discussion with a friend what what are journalist ethics. Journalist ethics not like The ethics for doctors, ethics for lawyers because the ethical obligations to whom you owe your obligations, they’re so varied for journalists. So as a journalist, do you primarily owe ethical obligations to your readers? You primarily owe ethical obligations to your sources of information? You primarily owe ethical obligations to the people you write about? Do you primarily owe ethical obligations to your profession? Because journalists depend heavily on cooperation from general public. Who do you primarily owe?
Ethical obligations to your employer, to your advertisers? There’s so many competing ethical obligations and it’s not at all clear to whom journalists owe their primary obligation. So that makes journalist ethics quite unlike the ethical codes of other professions. For example, it’s pretty clear that the doctor’s primary ethical obligation is to his patients. And an attorney’s primary ethical obligation is to his client and to the to the legal system. An accountant’s primary and obligation is to the general public, particularly, let’s say, investors, potential investors, those who might be affected by who are relying on the the accountant doing an honest job. And dentists, obviously, their primary ethical obligation is to the patient. But dentist, that’s interesting. So many dentists, push things that are bogus.
Right? There’s so many dentists abusing the the trust of their. Their patients. Is there any profession that so often abuses their clients as dentists do. Much of what dentists recommend is bogus. For example, there’s no empirical evidence that floss does does any good. Some dental procedures are often unnecessary. All they do is line the the dentist pockets. So so there’s a great article in the Atlantic about how off the hook dangerous dentists are with their just lack of ethical behavior in getting people to have unnecessary root canals, all sorts of painful expensive surgeries that line the dentist pockets, but do the patient no good.
Yearly dental x-rays are often over a $100. Be highly skeptical of what your dentist suggest you spend because abuse is just rampant and the profession hasn’t demonstrated much interest in curtail it.
So really watch out for your dentist and car mechanics. I don’t know anything about the workings of the automobiles. I don’t know how often they’ve taken advantage of me. I suspect they’ve rooked me for tens of thousands of dollars. The primary ethical obligation for the car mechanic is to a client, but then also to the state. For example, if we have laws about emissions. There are many people who do emissions, and they help people cheat the standard and the result is we all suffer from decreased air quality.
So there are all sorts of professions that exists primarily for the benefit of the profession not for the public and they have no interest in curtail abuse. Think about mortgage brokers and mortgage lending. They they have you sign such complicated lengthy documents that that there’s no reason to expect an ordinary person to understand what’s going on. There’s are so many fees that you are not not cognizant of, it’s clearly a profession where they have aligned a complicated way of doing things, so that they can screw you over.
For journalistic ethics, the most important thing is to know the name of the person who’s committing the work. Ethical questions will sort themselves out because the most important capital you have as a journalist is your reputation. So You get a reputation for misquoting people. People aren’t going to talk to you. You get a reputation being unfair. People won’t want deal with you. People won’t give you information. So as a journalist you you largely depend on other people cooperating, giving you information. That you honor on or off the record. So you quickly develop a reputation for fairness and accuracy and integrity. Do you make an honest effort to show different sides to a story?
So as long as your name is on your work, your ethics are going to sort themselves out.
Because if you show yourself to be a bad character, people are gonna shun you. Like most professions, journalists are most concerned about their reputation with their peers. So they probably socialize mainly with other the journalists. They want to look good to other journalists and so that that gives them an incentive to operate by the standards of their profession.
That also provides them a tremendous incentive for protecting their group. I got called by a CNN booker in 2007 because I was the guy who broke the story about the mayor of Los Angeles. He’d stopped wearing his wedding ring, he’d been having an affair with a news reader on a Spanish language TV station that covered him. So CNN wanted to bring me on the show live, so they sent a limo to pick me up at 4AM.
And I got into the CNN Los Angeles studio on sunset Boulevard about 4:30AM, and then they said, oh, we’re moving the interview back till it’s not gonna be live. It’s gonna be taped, and they when when we do the taped interview, I didn’t get to see the the woman anchor was asking me the questions. That’s by design, so that you’re on the defensive. And I noted that it was well known among journalists that for many months the married mayor had not been wearing his wedding ring, but the journalists were reluctant for various reasons to report on the mayor’s dissolving marriage because they wanted to support the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles in over a century and they generally agreed with this politics, and so they they were protective of mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. And the CNN anchor said, how can you say the about Los Angeles Times. They’ve Pulitzer surprises. Well, Pulitzer prize does not denote journalist excellence. It’s a popularity contest with other journalists. So New York Times journalists who lied for Stalin and covered up the the Ukrainian genocide. He got a Pulitzer prize.
Janet Cooke of the Washington Post invented a story about drug kids who are born with drug addictions. She just completely invented the story, and she she won a Pulitzer prize. So lots of long boring stories win Pulitzers because they’ve hit the sweet spot of what the profession regards as important, what it should support. S
So CNN did not air any of my interview. They didn’t wanna hear me criticize all the journalists. They didn’t wanna hear me point out that other journalists were aware of the same story I was, but that the journalist profession in Los Angeles had covered up for the mayor over the previous 6 to 9 months because they didn’t wanna break any embarrassing story about the mayor’s marriage.
Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor of The Atlantic. Like other journalist elites, he paid no price for lying America into invading Iraq in 2003 by pushing bogus stories about Iraq having WMD. Who suffered a hit for Russiagate promotion? Many of the perpetrators of that bogus story got Pulitzer prizes.
Journalists don’t generally pay pay a price for political activism. As long as their political activism fits in with the the world view of the the reigning elites.
So the New York Times found that there was the most money to be made and subscriptions to be gained from publishing opinion pieces about how horrible Trump was. So the New York Times has moved from an primarily advertising based publication where you’re rewarded for getting hits to a subscription model where you’re rewarded for reinforcing the world the world view of subscribers. So newspapers and Tv channels they’re are also a business. So just like Fox, they they tap into an audience, by largely telling the audience what they wanna hear. So to the New York Times has found its business model in telling telling its audience what it wants to hear.
Rather than what what may actually be true.
That’s the the winning business model. People have a particular view of the world, and they wanna be able to tune in to you and get that view of the world reinforced and extended into new areas.
The most powerful human desire is the desire for status. So status simply means the opposite of humiliation. So instead of going to work in the bar saying to you hey dexter bring me a cup of coffee. The boss says, hey, can you come into my office? And what do you think about this?
Love to get your opinion on this? Or you have people who who wanna know your opinion or respect you or treat you with, say some defer, so desire for status has a huge effect on our political opinions. Generally speaking, people are going to subscribe to the politics that fits in with the crowd that they wanna belong to. So if you’re an orthodox Jew you want to subscribe to a politics that fits in with the generally conservative political world of orthodox Jews. If you’re in the news media, you’re gonna wanna subscribe to a politics that fits in with with the worldview of your peers.
So you reject what our ruling elites believe is true, and you develop status in an alternative world. So you promote special knowledge aka conspiracy theories. So is there any more dramatic way to oppose everything that is held sacred in the Western world in 2020 than by denying the Holocaust. If you deny the holocaust, then you are completely giving up all options for status in the mainstream world, and you are making a dramatic play for status in the alternative world. So if you say Covid is a hoax, holocaust is a hoax then you’re rejecting status in the mainstream world and you’re are vying for status in the alternative ward.
So is it anti-social not to want status? Or even to want the opposite. I don’t believe that there’s anyone who doesn’t want status. It does seem anti-social, anti-human. If you don’t want status what you’re saying is that you’re you’re fine with humiliation which is incredibly dangerous to your well being. It’s incredibly dangerous to your health. It’s incredibly dangerous to your survival. And if you don’t want status, then you’re reducing your ability to form bonds with people. Because nobody who wants to be bonded to someone who is just continually being humiliated. Someone who is a walking talking humiliation, what kind of person will wanna bond with such a person? Only a fellow loser.
Playing to your audience is a very good business model. Having contempt for your audience tends to be a bad business model. Not wearing a mask inside during a dangerous influenza pandemic is also trying to gain status in an alternative world.
Posted in Journalism
Comments Off on Journalistic Ethics (12-9-20)
PhD History Student Matt “History Speaks” On The Middle East Conflict (6-19-24)
01:00 Matt’s substack, https://historyspeaks.substack.com/
03:00 Matt’s Twitter, https://x.com/History__Speaks
09:00 Realism vs moralism in international conflict
21:00 The sources of our self-esteem
26:00 The seasons of a man’s life
27:00 Matt is a lawyer (University of Chicago)
29:00 Why did Luke never marry?
31:00 Luke diagnosed with ADHD, Matt with obsessive-compulsive disorder
33:50 Enlightenment means respect for fact
42:00 The buffered identity vs the porous identity, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149512
53:00 The invention of racism as a moral category
57:00 Luke & Matt share their hero systems
1:00:00 That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138784
1:02:50 Matt’s activist Twitter feed, https://x.com/History__Speaks
1:05:00 How Matt has been changed by studying law
1:13:00 Matt’s asked about serious thinkers who are Zionists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris
1:18:00 JPOST: Experts: ICC, UN blamed Israel for a famine that never happened in Gaza – exclusive, https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806735
1:26:00 Everything, including the category of civilian, is contingent
1:35:00 The “Good War”: Preparations for a War against Civilians, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155491
1:53:00 Human rights, https://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2a.html
2:00:00 AP: The war in Gaza has wiped out entire Palestinian families. AP documents 60 who lost dozens or more, https://apnews.com/article/gaza-palestinians-families-israel-war-deaths-a9f8bcfe402c17f1f78903eae67b7a7d
2:03:00 BBC: ‘I’m calling from Israeli intelligence. We have the order to bomb. You have two hours’, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
2:15:00 Black September, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
2:20:00 No, we’re not in a new cold war with China, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/07/cold-war-cold-peace-united-states-china-xi-decoupling-trade/
2:30:00 The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=142846
2:37:00 Matt’s first published scholarly article – did the Nazis plan world genocides? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17504902.2024.2326262
2:42:50 College protests for Palestine
2:45:00 Mearsheimer: ‘Israelis wouldn’t mind a general conflagration because that would facilitate ethnic cleansing.’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=153903
2:48:00 Israeli morale has plunged over the past three months
2:52:00 Ze’ev Jabotinsky – serious Zionist thinker, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze’ev_Jabotinsky
2:55:00 Matt’s substack, https://historyspeaks.substack.com/
2:57:30 Dooovid joins, https://x.com/RebDoooovid
3:22:00 BBC: ‘I’m calling from Israeli intelligence. We have the order to bomb. You have two hours’, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
3:36:00 A Short History of International Humanitarian Law, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155471
4:13:00 Elliott Blatt joins, discusses Juneteenth
4:15:00 Why can’t black pride and gay pride work together?
4:20:00 Human rights as a Marxist motte-and-bailey trick, https://quillbot.com/blog/motte-and-bailey-fallacy/
4:29:00 The reorganization of priorities after a tough illness
Complete transcript of the show: https://lukeford.net/blog/?page_id=155712
Podnotes summary: I chatted with my friend Matt “History Speaks,” a history PhD student at the London School of Economics. We discussed his Egyptian heritage and how it shaped his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, contrasting with typical American perspectives. He feels that while Christians in Egypt face discrimination, they generally sympathize more with Palestinians.
Growing up half-Egyptian in America made him feel like an outsider sometimes, but he had a good childhood overall. We also talked about historical narratives and who shapes them, using World War I trench poets as an example of powerful storytelling.
Matt believes enlightenment values have brought progress worldwide despite some traditional norms being beneficial too. On social media’s role in self-esteem, Matt spends much time there but gets more satisfaction from professional achievements than online interactions.
Lastly, we touched on love’s impact on self-esteem and how relationships can reveal our true selves even as we might present ourselves more empathetically to loved ones. As for life stages, men often focus on building their “kingdom” until around 40 before turning attention to family and community – a concept Matt finds interesting given his own journey from law to academia.
Matt: I struggled with my career as a lawyer, despite doing well in law school and serving on the Chicago Law Review. I wanted to establish myself before starting a family, expecting that my current self-centeredness would diminish over time.
Luke: My father theorized that we can only do about six hours of intense intellectual work daily.
Matt: So now, I’m focusing on building my own “kingdom” during these prime hours. In the future, I plan to devote myself more to others—like a wife and children.
Luke: I’ve never married or had kids due to poor health from being raised vegetarian until discovering beef organ capsules three years ago which improved my condition significantly. Discussing masculinity last week, I argued it’s defined by one’s ability to support a family—a view not everyone shares but is common among traditional perspectives.
Eight months ago, an ADHD diagnosis changed everything for me; this disorder made it difficult for me to focus on mundane tasks and influenced my emotional stability. With medication, however, life has become much more manageable.
We also discussed how enlightenment values like respect for facts shaped our understanding of science and progress while maintaining religious beliefs. Some enlightenment thinkers questioned established doctrines yet held onto their faiths.
The right often views human nature skeptically—believing in the necessity of societal structures like religion and state for guidance—while the left tends toward trusting individual judgment in determining morality.
As someone who believes what happens around us affects us deeply (a porous identity), even neighbors’ actions feel impactful personally. However, many adopt what Charles Taylor calls a “buffered identity,” where they don’t feel affected by external behaviors or morals unless directly involved—an outlook reflecting modernity’s detachment compared to pre-modern interconnectedness.
Matt: In discussions about anti-slavery sentiment, it’s clear that such views largely stem from the Enlightenment. Earlier moral and religious teachings focused on treating slaves kindly rather than abolishing slavery altogether. Notable figures like Jesus, Mohammed, and Aristotle did not advocate for abolition.
Luke: As for personal hero systems, I value truth-seeking as a heroic trait and believe in a divine being who rewards good over evil. The concept of a hero system was introduced by Ernest Becker in his 1963 book “The Denial of Death,” suggesting we all seek meaning to counter our fear of insignificance. Even those with secular beliefs adhere to some form of heroism by standing against ignorance or pursuing scientific truths.
Matt: On the topic of legal studies influencing one’s perspective, it can lead to viewing issues through a lens of contentious logic or finding ways to deconstruct arguments—a skill often used by lawyers but less desirable elsewhere. In my view, many lawyers are poor writers despite their intelligence.
Discussing serious Zionist thinkers brings up historical figures like Benny Morris who is critical yet influential in Israeli history despite his controversial views on Palestinians.
Finally, learning new skills or knowledge comes at the cost of losing other abilities or perspectives—much like how studying law has shaped my analytical approach but also limited my appreciation for certain literary forms.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) aimed to retrieve hostages and end violence.
Matt: Despite powerful allies like the United States, Israel may face consequences for these actions. During initial months of conflict, Israel bombed homes deliberately, targeting even low-level Hamas militants at home with their families—resulting in high civilian casualties.
After World War II, international laws evolved to protect civilians during war—a relatively new concept that reflects changing values rather than eternal truths. Western nations now take such norms more seriously compared to past conflicts like Vietnam and Korea.
Netanyahu’s references to World War II suggest he saw his cause as justifying severe wartime actions similar to those once accepted by “good guys” like Churchill. However, today’s standards condemn many acts from WWII as crimes against humanity.
Civilian protection has become increasingly important since WWII, though initially there was resistance and legal ambiguity about aerial bombardment of civilians. Today’s attitudes have shifted significantly due to evolving narratives around civilian suffering and moral responsibility during conflict.
Ultimately, human nature can lead people to support extreme measures against perceived enemies when feeling threatened—yet liberal institutions do exert some influence on behavior modification over time. For instance, Israel reduced its rate of killing after initial responses post-October 7th attack by Hamas due largely to external pressures and incentives.
In heated debates, it’s hard to change minds unless someone is already on the fence. Emotions run high and people cling to their beliefs. As an Orthodox Jewish convert, I’ve noticed that being part of a group can make you more defensive about its views. For example, most Jews shun those who are anti-Zionist unless they align with intellectual or political groups that hold different values.
We’re all biased by our communities and upbringing, which influence our judgments. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t recognize clear facts when emotions subside. Consider jury duty; even if biases exist, overwhelming evidence usually leads to just verdicts.
Matt: Douglas Murray argues Israel has a moral army because it warns civilians before attacks – a claim I find misleading since such warnings have often been insufficient or nonexistent according to recent reports.
Finally, group identity plays a significant role in how we perceive others and make decisions. While genetics and socialization are crucial factors in forming our preferences and morals, reason also matters over time as passions cool down and facts become clearer.
I’ll criticize them differently, without assuming bad faith. Which Middle Eastern army sets the moral standard in war? It’s tough to say; none seem to fully comply with the laws of conflict. Both sides often commit numerous war crimes.
The Turkish military might be better than some, but still not ideal. For instance, Egypt and Israel would behave differently in a conflict compared to Hamas, yet neither would adhere strictly to the law of armed conflict as we understand it.
Matt: Which nations have militaries that respect human rights most closely? The United States, France, Britain, and Canada train their soldiers for compliance with international law. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect—U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq differ from Israeli conduct in Gaza.
For example, Israel has targeted homes with bombs killing Hamas members along with civilian families—a practice documented by Airwars and testimonies about a program targeting family homes.
The U.S., however, wouldn’t engage in such tactics in Iraq despite its own issues like torture post-9/11 which was later reversed under Obama’s administration. These examples show some norms are taken seriously.
In terms of brutality within Middle Eastern conflicts—the rate at which civilians die is high when compared globally—even Jordan once killed thousands during an uprising against Palestinians.
Palestinians have been disruptive when displaced to countries like Lebanon or Syria due partly to discrimination but also demographic concerns regarding citizenship—which could disrupt delicate communal balances within these societies.
Academics sometimes hype threats for job security—like how IR scholars may exaggerate a new Cold War with China after jobs dropped post-Cold War era.
Human rights concepts evolved significantly after WWII; previously tied more directly to what states granted citizens became seen as universal post-1960s through organizations like Amnesty International.
However personal beliefs can bias our views on sacred topics—we should strive for objectivity even though complete detachment from our values is challenging.
Matt: My first scholarly article debunked claims that Nazis planned exterminating Jews outside Europe—while acknowledging any Jew under Nazi rule was indeed at risk given their ideology.
In 1943, Jewish slave laborers in Tunisia received better rations than those in Europe, highlighting varying policies. Historians focus on what happened; I believe there was no extermination plan in Tunisia contrary to some claims.
Regarding the Middle East conflict, many intellectuals and historians lean towards Palestine over Israel. The release of Israeli documents led to critical perspectives from “new historians” like Morris and Pappe. Despite societal pressures, I’ve spoken out for Palestinian statehood without endorsing extreme measures like Hamas’s actions.
Western opinions on the Middle East differ significantly from those within the region itself. For instance, after October 7th, Western polls showed opposition to certain events that were supported by majorities in the Middle East.
The pro-Palestine protests on American campuses are significant as they raise awareness much like Vietnam War protests did despite not being universally popular. These movements could impact Israel’s reputation if allegations about targeting civilians during war are substantiated.
John Mearsheimer suggests that while the US seeks stability in the Middle East without escalation, Israelis may see benefits in a complicated situation facilitating territorial control and addressing security concerns with Hezbollah.
Matt: My analysis is that emotions rather than rational strategy drive current Israeli actions against Hezbollah and Hamas – this approach seems counterproductive and risks damage to their international standing.
On my Substack platform, I’m analyzing Gaza health data to infer civilian casualty ratios which seem higher than reported by Israel – challenging official narratives with demographic-based evidence.
Luke: My standard is to share more than 50 percent of earnings or donate gifts through PayPal. This applies to anyone who comes on my show, like Mike Enoch and Eric Striker.
When we get significant super chats, if it’s over $50 or $100, I give at least half to the guest because they’re often the reason for those donations. But this isn’t common in our industry; usually, you negotiate shares beforehand.
No one has ever shared their earnings with me. Once when I brought it up and was refused, I felt foolish and didn’t ask again—though it does bother me.
Dooovid: You should discuss these things upfront; otherwise, guests might back out.
I’ve only earned about $300 from streaming over four years; most years don’t even meet tax thresholds. Church of Entropy chose not to monetize our joint streams.
At chess clubs or synagogues, making people feel welcome can have a huge impact—especially on those with low self-esteem—but many organizations fail at this inclusivity once they establish their core group.
The richer a synagogue is, often the less welcoming it feels—they must convey exclusivity somehow without outright rejecting people.
On human rights: They depend on enforcement by power holders—the illusion that individuals can protect their own rights doesn’t hold much weight in reality. Self-esteem varies based on success but having supporters outweighs dealing with haters.
An article about Israel’s military warning Gaza residents before bombings highlights complex moral issues surrounding conflict and identity narratives important for some people’s self-perception as part of an ethical nation-state.
Dooov: In society, a person who didn’t attend university but found success in business is often admired, especially within the Orthodox community. These wealthy individuals become heroes and protectors of their communities despite sometimes engaging in less respected professions like real estate or nursing homes.
However, in more progressive circles, respect from non-Jews and academia is also valued. This difference reflects varying identities within Jewish culture – some prioritize internal community validation while others seek external approval.
The idea that each generation morally declines contrasts with beliefs in human progression towards rationality and enlightenment. Views on international humanitarian law have evolved too; previously military necessity trumped civilian needs, but modern treaties emphasize humanitarian concerns.
Many countries haven’t signed these protocols due to disagreements over definitions and principles like proportionality. This has led to debates about how wars are fought and whether certain actions constitute war crimes or human rights violations – topics still hotly contested today.
The end of war brought a call for more humane international laws, but critics argue these new rules are confusing and hurt civilian protection. The formalized approach to humanitarian law seems idealistic, yet some say it’s more about feeling good than practical change.
Critics believe the development of such laws blurs lines between civilians and combatants, endangering non-combatants by shifting responsibility from defenders to attackers. They also see the push for “humane” regulations as unrealistic, likening it to gender differences in competition—men understand its rules while women may not engage similarly.
This critique extends to feminist and Marxist influences on international law that propose impractical changes. These academics prioritize utopian ideals over real-world effects, focusing on victims’ rights without considering broader implications.
Human Rights Watch’s interpretation of wartime legal obligations faced skepticism from experts who favored traditional principles like proportionality—a vague concept allowing military actions if justified by necessity.
By the late ’90s, focus shifted towards ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. With UN intervention came a renewed interest in enforcing humanitarian law. This period saw an influx of young female professionals into the field, influenced by feminist and Marxist ideologies aiming for nurturing government roles.
Despite initial resistance, many now accept Protocol I’s provisions as customary law due to advocacy by organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. These groups emphasize civilian protection during conflict—a significant shift from pre-World War II norms where civilians’ fates were tied with their state’s fortunes.
Elliott Blatt: During Reagan’s presidency, media would often mock his slip-ups. Now, when a Republican becomes president, homelessness is highlighted as a major issue. Under Biden, despite claims of economic success, homelessness persists or worsens.
Our perceptions are influenced by our own biases and belief systems—just like an evangelical Christian has their faith; others have their ideologies they consider superior.
Switching topics: Rony Guldmann has great ideas but isn’t the best speaker. Academics often struggle with public speaking due to overcomplicated writing styles that hinder clear communication.
I’ve subscribed to Podnotes for $34 a month; it provides 1200 minutes of transcription and summarization services. Removing “you know” from one show transcript cut out 369 instances!
Post-illness brings nihilism followed by internal reorganization and reprioritizing life goals—for me, fixing simple things like a hole in the wall and focusing on career ambitions while eliminating distractions.
On the technical side, I’m learning to edit my video shorts better after initially uploading many with awkward pauses. It’s tedious correcting these mistakes made before mastering the AI editing software.
Lastly, I haven’t tried monetizing my content much since it doesn’t go viral; my audience is small yet selective—a bit like Spinal Tap’s “more selective” fan base reference.
EB: Anyway, I’m working today instead of celebrating Juneteenth—let’s catch up tomorrow.
Posted in America
Comments Off on PhD History Student Matt “History Speaks” On The Middle East Conflict (6-19-24)