Listen now | 1:37 Israel’s military plans for northern Gaza 4:37 How does international law apply to Israel and Hamas? 15:47 The first casualty of war is truth 24:22 Do Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute ethnic cleansing? 31:38 The evolving definition of genocide
Fantastic podcast, I loved the nuance on this discussion and Sarah Whitson has such a wealth of information and expertise!
Bob, if it is possible I would also love to hear more on this area! I would also love to hear Miko Peled on your podcast. He in particular seems to express that cognitive empathy towards the Palestinians in a manner that is lacking in media coverage, especially from an Israeli voice!
It seem to recall Hamas killed / mutilated 100s of Israeli civilians in cold blood, and took hundreds hostage. Yet to your guest this is merely incidental.
I'm trying to ignore the fact that your recent podcasts have been a platform for latent Hamasniks and academic anti-semites. I'd appreciate hearing you grapple with the perspective of someone like Haviv Rettig Gur.
It's hard to imagine international law as a useful tool in a case like this. Is anyone really foolish enough to think that the ICC can do anything here? As if the leadership of Hamas will submit itself for arraignment in the Hague? I'm sure that from Ms Whitson's perspective (and--I fear--from yours, Bob), international law is a perfectly suitable solution since Israel is the only one at fault, and they're subject to ICC pressure as an legitimate nation and state rather than a terrorist death cult.
Hamas unequivocally committed a war crime in launching this war; without the force of arms, any judgment or verdict from the ICC will be worthless.
It's quite courageous for Bob to have Sarah Leah Whitson. She is a remarkably accomplished human rights activist and lawyer who graduated from Harvard law school and worked at Goldman Sachs and at Cleary Gottlieb which is America's most prominent international law firm. Unfortunately, in the current climate what she has to say will not be welcomed in the US or Israel. And this talk has already been greeted with hostility on blogging heads. But the point I want to address here is not the numerous violations of international law by the combatants. They are clear and indisputable on both sides in the current Israel/Hamas conflict. Rather it is the complete irrelevance of international law to wars such as this where the parties have effectively vowed to exterminate each other and don't recognize any rights in the opposing side. While it is easy enough to demonstrate and enumerate the violations of international law here, those violations do not give rise to any consequences. Not only is there no enforcement mechanism present, but even journalists and social media outlets dare not mention them for fear of violent backlash. The emotions run so high in this war (as they do in many wars) that no one cares about atrocities committed by their side and instead only complain about the atrocities committed by the other side. As for the underlying conflict, it is completely intractable. No one can even talk about peace in the current climate but even if they wanted to talk there is no solution to be had. This is a part of a larger conflict that has been going on for 75 years and it is no closer to a solution than it was in 1948. And it seems clear that the violence will only get worse.
I was one of the people on bloggingheads treating Bob and Sarah with some "hostility" though I think my criticisms were valid even if a bit too harsh. Perhaps I should've tempered them with some effusive praise of Bob because his interviews are more interesting than most other podcasters. Intentionally or not, Bob has created an image of himself as the "cognitive bias" understander, and it can be annoying when he doesn't publicly acknowledge or confront his own cognitive biases. I think every nonzero subscriber can recognize the difference between this interview and the ones with Bret Stephens. And it's not just a difference of temperment, he asks more challenging and more interesting questions with a guest like Bret or Eli Lake or any of the "blob" supporters he so strongly dislikes, and often times, those type of guests give unsatsifying answers which lowers my estimation of them and their policy prescriptions.
>"no one cares about atrocities committed by their side and instead only complain about the atrocities committed by the other side."
This is especially ironic as Sarah is currently retweeting unsubstantiated accussations that Israel was responsible for the bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital. At this point (6 PM EST) no one can be certain who was responsible.
Fantastic podcast, I loved the nuance on this discussion and Sarah Whitson has such a wealth of information and expertise!
Bob, if it is possible I would also love to hear more on this area! I would also love to hear Miko Peled on your podcast. He in particular seems to express that cognitive empathy towards the Palestinians in a manner that is lacking in media coverage, especially from an Israeli voice!
@ Chris Wright - Agreed.
It seem to recall Hamas killed / mutilated 100s of Israeli civilians in cold blood, and took hundreds hostage. Yet to your guest this is merely incidental.
This conversation was painful.
I'm trying to ignore the fact that your recent podcasts have been a platform for latent Hamasniks and academic anti-semites. I'd appreciate hearing you grapple with the perspective of someone like Haviv Rettig Gur.
It's hard to imagine international law as a useful tool in a case like this. Is anyone really foolish enough to think that the ICC can do anything here? As if the leadership of Hamas will submit itself for arraignment in the Hague? I'm sure that from Ms Whitson's perspective (and--I fear--from yours, Bob), international law is a perfectly suitable solution since Israel is the only one at fault, and they're subject to ICC pressure as an legitimate nation and state rather than a terrorist death cult.
Hamas unequivocally committed a war crime in launching this war; without the force of arms, any judgment or verdict from the ICC will be worthless.
It's quite courageous for Bob to have Sarah Leah Whitson. She is a remarkably accomplished human rights activist and lawyer who graduated from Harvard law school and worked at Goldman Sachs and at Cleary Gottlieb which is America's most prominent international law firm. Unfortunately, in the current climate what she has to say will not be welcomed in the US or Israel. And this talk has already been greeted with hostility on blogging heads. But the point I want to address here is not the numerous violations of international law by the combatants. They are clear and indisputable on both sides in the current Israel/Hamas conflict. Rather it is the complete irrelevance of international law to wars such as this where the parties have effectively vowed to exterminate each other and don't recognize any rights in the opposing side. While it is easy enough to demonstrate and enumerate the violations of international law here, those violations do not give rise to any consequences. Not only is there no enforcement mechanism present, but even journalists and social media outlets dare not mention them for fear of violent backlash. The emotions run so high in this war (as they do in many wars) that no one cares about atrocities committed by their side and instead only complain about the atrocities committed by the other side. As for the underlying conflict, it is completely intractable. No one can even talk about peace in the current climate but even if they wanted to talk there is no solution to be had. This is a part of a larger conflict that has been going on for 75 years and it is no closer to a solution than it was in 1948. And it seems clear that the violence will only get worse.
I was one of the people on bloggingheads treating Bob and Sarah with some "hostility" though I think my criticisms were valid even if a bit too harsh. Perhaps I should've tempered them with some effusive praise of Bob because his interviews are more interesting than most other podcasters. Intentionally or not, Bob has created an image of himself as the "cognitive bias" understander, and it can be annoying when he doesn't publicly acknowledge or confront his own cognitive biases. I think every nonzero subscriber can recognize the difference between this interview and the ones with Bret Stephens. And it's not just a difference of temperment, he asks more challenging and more interesting questions with a guest like Bret or Eli Lake or any of the "blob" supporters he so strongly dislikes, and often times, those type of guests give unsatsifying answers which lowers my estimation of them and their policy prescriptions.
>"no one cares about atrocities committed by their side and instead only complain about the atrocities committed by the other side."
This is especially ironic as Sarah is currently retweeting unsubstantiated accussations that Israel was responsible for the bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital. At this point (6 PM EST) no one can be certain who was responsible.