I was usually ambivalent about government directed Covid vaccine mandates. I didn’t support them but the topic made me uncomfortable. I am pro-vaccine and pro freedom. I think our elites (including political and public health elites) did a better than average job during Covid.
Now I love the topic of government directed Covid vaccine mandates (of course private entities should be free to require Covid vaccines). How much personal freedom should one lose if there is a massive public health payoff?
What changed my mind was reading this Linda Greenhouse essay in the New York Review of Books: “For the new majority on the Supreme Court, religious liberty takes precedence over the government’s power to protect public health.”
In the general dispute between individual freedom and the public good, I’m slightly more towards the public good than I was in earlier days.
She places on display an American exceptionalism of a particularly disquieting form: a legal mindset that has come to value individual freedom over communal welfare and so has “lost sight of contagion’s most compelling lesson: Our own health depends on the health of others.”
…American legal culture—constitutional law in particular—played an unacknowledged part “in generating the vulnerabilities that the pandemic exploited.” A uniquely American body of law “privileged a particularly thin and one-sided conception of liberty” that helped to “amplify the forces that tear at our social fabric.”
…In Parmet’s view, the Jacobson opinion exemplifies a “rich conception of liberty,” which was lost during the Covid-19 pandemic to the “narrow and individualistic conception of liberty” that came to dominate the public and judicial discussion. She does not exempt the Biden administration from criticism for the “individualistic framing” it adopted. In May 2021, referring to the vaccines that by then were widely available, Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declared that “we really want to empower people to take this responsibility into their own hands.” Parmet observes, “Once health risks are viewed in this manner, pandemic mitigation measures appear as intrusions on individual liberty.”
Courts embraced the individualistic framing as if on cue. In January 2022 a federal district judge barred the navy from penalizing a group of SEALs who claimed religious reasons for refusing the Covid vaccine. Parmet notes this astonishing case, but without giving the details that demonstrate how far away from the “rich liberty” of the Jacobson case the legal system was moving not even two years into the pandemic. The district court decision’s list of the SEALs’ rationales for refusing to be vaccinated included the “belief that modifying one’s body is an affront to the Creator” and “direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine.” The navy argued that the requested waivers would render the SEALs nondeployable, to the detriment of military readiness and the national defense. Judge Reed O’Connor was unmoved. “The Plaintiffs’ loss of religious liberties outweighs any forthcoming harm to the Navy,” he concluded. (The Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request for a stay of O’Connor’s decision, over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, while the case proceeded. Congress later that year ordered the Pentagon to lift the deployment bar on unvaccinated service members, and the navy’s compliance rendered the case moot.)
The Pro-Palestine protesters who showed up outside of Adas Torah synagogue on Sunday were not primarily protesters – they were combatants engaged in an act of war. Because they blocked entry to the synagogue, they were creating a blockade, which is an act of war.
I would be happy to see people engaged in blockades get the death penalty (if the blockade created innocent deaths). You execute a few and the rest will get the message.
I would want the same result for any group illegally executing a blockade, including for Jews who blockaded a mosque or church or a public street.
A friend texted on Sunday afternoon: “Just checking in to make sure your family is okay after everything in LA today.” I hadn’t been online and had no clue what he was talking about. It could have been anything—an earthquake or a wildfire—but something told me it was antisemitism. Unfortunately, I was right.
Protesters waving Palestinian flags and shouting anti-Israel slogans gathered outside Adas Torah synagogue in Los Angeles’s Pico-Robertson neighborhood on Sunday. They tried to block the entrance and were soon met by counterprotesters waving Israeli flags. The groups clashed. Adas Torah officials said the anti-Israel demonstrators maced and bear-sprayed Jews trying to enter the synagogue, which was holding an Israeli real-estate fair. Talia Regev, 43, said she was sprayed and saw violent altercations between the two groups.
“There was nowhere to turn where you could be safe,” said Naftoli Sherman, 25, who had planned to attend the synagogue’s fair. He was attacked and ended up in the hospital. “There was a whole gang of protesters on top of me. They broke my nose and kicked me in the head a couple of times.”
Israeli-born journalist Daniel Greenfield reported that an anti-Israel protester had threatened, “Billions of us will come and kill you.”
President Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom took to social media to condemn Sunday’s act of hate. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass promised that the police would “provide additional patrols in the Pico-Robertson community as well as outside of houses of worship throughout the city.” It’s good they spoke up, but tweeting isn’t enough.
Nor is standing by and watching. Members of the Los Angeles Police Department observed the melee unfold rather than protecting those targeted by the mob. It took volunteers from nonprofit Jewish security organizations, including LA Shmira Public Safety and Magen Am, to break up the scuffles. “Without them, it would have been a lot worse,” Mr. Sherman said.
“If not for Magen Am, I don’t know what would have happened,” said David Kramer, 37. “People were running, screaming, a little bit delirious,” and begging uniformed officers to intercede. Despite many pleas, he said, “they were slow to move, and it appeared to me like they had orders to stand down.”
As the fighting moved east of Adas Torah toward other synagogues in the Jewish neighborhood, the police remained about a quarter-block away from the action, Ms. Regev said. She urged officers to get involved. “I said, ‘You need to stop this,’ and they essentially said, ‘We can’t do anything without a higher authority.’ ” Mr. Greenfield said the police “did little to interfere with the terrorist supporters.” By failing to disperse the protesters, they made it difficult for Jews to enter their own synagogue. The LAPD declined to comment.
If the Pro-Palestine crowd was simply protesting under the protection of the law, I would have no objection, but they were not primarily protesting. They were primarily engaged in an act of war. When I went to a pro-Israel event at UCLA a few weeks ago, dozens of Pro-Palestine blokes formed a blockade to prevent Jews from getting into their own event. Eventually, some strong Jews broke through the blockade and we followed them in.
If Jews wait for law enforcement to create space for them to move freely, they wait a long time. The Pro-Palestine crowd repeatedly creates situations where Jews must use brute force to lead their lives.
Posted inAdas Torah|Comments Off on A Blockade Is An Act Of War
Podnotes AI generated summary: I want to discuss moral categories, distinguishing between genuine ones like respect for parents and sexual discipline, and pseudo-moral categories such as racism. I want to research traditional morals, favoring time-tested methods over newer concepts.
Steve Sailer analyzes the impact of movements like Black Lives Matter. He suggests they’ve indirectly led to an increase in black deaths not just by police but mostly within their own community through violence and accidents. The discussion shifts towards group identity and protecting one’s community members from harm, emphasizing a sense of extended family within a group.
Dooovid joins the conversation but diverts into academic theories of identity rather than directly addressing points made about in-group dynamics during conflicts such as those witnessed outside a synagogue during political protests.
They touch upon Israel’s Supreme Court ruling requiring Haredi Jews to be drafted into military service—a significant development both had different levels of awareness about—and briefly discuss whether mandatory public service could work in the U.S., which David doubts due to differing national identities and purposes compared to Israel.
Finally, loneliness is highlighted as more than personal struggle; it’s seen as a national security issue because it makes people susceptible to manipulation via scams or extreme ideologies.
You’re waiting for someone to complete you, right? Psychos prey on that. They make you feel good and then exploit you. Our diversity means we often have little in common with others, leading to loneliness. Smart people might be doing okay, but many are lonely and at risk of extremism or scams.
Natalia, an online security expert, was laughed at by old school Bureau agents when she warned about the national security threat posed by loneliness. Lonely individuals like David Franklin Slater—a retired lieutenant colonel—can fall prey to foreign influence because they crave attention and want to feel special.
Intelligence agencies target the lonely for information. Even Americans have been caught leaking classified details out of a desire for connection or importance.
Elliot joins the show to share a personal story: I know Joe, someone who’s a bit of an under earner yet intelligent and competent. He brings women over; they’re not attractive. He seeks approval through association with me.
One day he brought over a stunning woman—educated, multilingual—and everything changed for me. She left baked goods at my door later; this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day! Her mother began texting me about her stock trading method; it seems there’s some angle here where they think I have money. It’s hard to stay rational around such beauty despite knowing better—it feels like a scam from a novel plotline.
I’m puzzled—how does she know Joe? There’s this quasi-supermarket in my neighborhood, known for cheap wine and groceries. It attracts people from all walks of life looking for good deals. But it’s also a place where some men find drug-addicted women to exploit.
San Francisco isn’t just needles and feces like many assume; residential areas are quite normal. I live in the lesser part of one of the city’s best neighborhoods—it’s like being at the bottom tier but still within Sea Cliff.
Joe once brought a woman into my apartment against my wishes. He misled her into believing he was wealthy, thinking it would help him seduce her. Now I can’t stop checking if she texts me. It’s tempting to believe things aren’t as bad as they seem, even when you know better.
This situation could ruin your life financially and emotionally, yet it draws you in irresistibly. We deceive ourselves about our needs and vulnerabilities until someone exposes them.
Luke: As for international humanitarian law discussions—they’ve evolved significantly due to wars like Vietnam and conflicts involving groups like Hamas challenging traditional distinctions between civilians and combatants. The rise of guerrilla warfare has prompted new laws that protect fighters who don’t conform to conventional military norms.
These shifts reflect broader societal changes, including increased female participation in these fields influencing policy directions toward human rights concerns—a trend unlikely to reverse anytime soon.
The 1907 Hague Convention mandates that combatants seeking protection must always be identifiable, carry arms openly, follow a responsible command, and abide by war laws. Yet Palestinian fighters don’t adhere to these norms. Article 2 of the regulations grants prisoner-of-war rights to those who bear arms openly and respect war laws before occupation. However, once occupied, resistance against occupiers isn’t allowed; attacking vital lines of communication is forbidden since an army relies on them.
Civilians are protected only if they remain peaceful; any aggression forfeits their safety guarantees. The 1949 Geneva Conventions didn’t significantly alter these rules but emphasized recognizable insignia for organized resistance members. Guerrilla warfare was well-regulated long before the 1970s—the law clearly required combatant identification for Geneva Convention protections.
Civilians outside structured military involvement risk execution while others face reprisals. Protection mainly exists in Article 25 of the Hague Convention which bans undiscriminating bombardment unless enemy forces occupy such areas—then it’s permissible.
Attackers should warn besieged cities prior to bombing if possible—a tactic Israel uses in conflicts like Gaza wars where religious buildings and hospitals should be spared damage when feasible despite civilian exposure to warfare’s effects.
Aerial warfare has historically targeted civilians with efforts to limit this failing repeatedly throughout the early-to-mid-20th century—it’s tacitly accepted as part of conflict dynamics now.
The Geneva Conventions offer limited protection for passive civilians during wartime but allow measures against them if dictated by military necessity or security reasons—including total evacuation or control over a population deemed necessary due to war conditions.
These conventions have shaped strategies separating civilians from combat zones forcibly or voluntarily—as seen historically in various global conflicts aimed at isolating guerrillas from popular support networks through relocation programs into camps or constructed communities like South Vietnam’s strategic hamlet program under American influence.
Despite conventional views on orderly uniformed soldiers versus subdued citizens, alternative revolutionary models emerged throughout the 20th century—exemplified by Vietnam War tactics adopted by Palestinian movements embracing communist ideologies promoting people’s wars without clear distinctions between civilian supporters and armed forces.
This blurs traditional separations mandated by international law favoring active engagement over passivity within oppressed populations fighting imperialism—an inherent human condition where more powerful groups naturally exert influence over weaker ones according to some perspectives challenging moral categorizations based on differences among peoples’ abilities or outcomes resulting from them.
The ideology that colonialism is a major evil has gained traction, particularly in the United Nations where decolonized nations are increasing. Resolutions have labeled Zionism as racism and affirmed the right to self-determination—except for some, like those under “alien domination,” a term coined for Palestinians. In 1970, UN Resolution 2649 supported Palestinian rights but excluded Jewish self-determination. Later resolutions deemed colonialism criminal and legitimized armed struggle against it.
This shift branded effective countries as criminal and justified opposition means, including guerrilla warfare and terrorism. After the Munich Olympics incident where Israeli athletes were killed by Palestinian terrorists, discussions at the UN shifted to include underlying causes of terrorism such as misery and despair.
An ad hoc committee on international terrorism further legitimized national liberation struggles like Palestine’s fight for recognition which peaked in 1974 when Yasser Arafat addressed the General Assembly.
Critics argue there’s no clear divide between politics and law; narratives influence both. They worry that this perspective undermines traditional international law by politicizing issues like war legitimacy or terrorist actions’ legality.
Amidst debates about Israel’s counterinsurgency tactics being disproportionate or unethical, concerns grow over their impact on democratic values and potential escalation into genocide-like responses from those labeled imperialist powers.
In conclusion, discourse around conflicts now heavily favors anti-colonial views while challenging conventional understandings of lawful warfare—transforming civilian protections into paramount considerations during combat situations.
Steve Sailer has spent a lifetime observing human behavior and coming to obvious, sensible conclusions. For the crime of noticing reality, he’s been ostracized, although secretly everyone still reads him.
Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law
The distinction between civilians and combatants and the protection of civilians are perhaps the central precepts of international humanitarian law today.
…Vietnam served as the archetype of the contemporary conflicts that had prompted the ICRC to draft new laws. When the ICRC began calling for new laws of armed conflict it
was concerned by military developments, such as aviation, that had “almost wiped out” the fundamental distinctions between combatants and civilians. It was also troubled by the rise of a “truly enormous tidal wave of guerrilla activity” that had not been anticipated by earlier conventions.
The Vietnam War was the consummate example of these concerns. Moreover, the Vietnam War informed the drafting process by challenging the traditional Western understanding of the laws of armed conflict. The revolutionary writings on people’s war, put into practice in Vietnam, shaped a new language and paradigm of a just war, while advocating for the legitimacy of guerrilla warfare.
This language was adopted by Palestinian movements, which presented their struggle as analogous to the Vietnamese people’s war. Support for the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization led to a series of United Nations resolutions, proclaiming the rights of national liberation movements and their fighters in a quasi-legal language that would later be repeated at the Diplomatic Conferences.
There was also growing support for the Palestinian and the Vietnamese resistance in the West. Wars against imperial powers were increasingly accepted as just and the means used to oppose them seemed shocking.
Popular and academic commentary in the West questioned the lawfulness of counterinsurgency techniques, in particular attacks on civilians. These discourses were reflected in the debates at the Diplomatic Conference and ultimately in the provisions of the Additional Protocol I.
Posted inArabs, Israel|Comments Off on Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law
"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)
