A Response To Norman Finkelstein - Coleman Hughes and Michael Moynihan
Dec 1, 2023
auto_awesome
Coleman Hughes and Michael Moynihan discuss the reluctance to condemn atrocities by Hamas, the impact of Nat Turner's Rebellion on the Civil War, unfair comparisons between Gaza and historical evils, the challenge of applying international law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the corruption within the field of history.
Finkelstein's selective portrayal of Gaza overlooks the better health statistics and fails to engage in a moral discussion on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Simply relying on international law without considering practical implications and outcomes is insufficient in resolving the conflict.
The unique challenges of negotiating with Hamas, their ideological objectives, and Israel's need for self-defense shape strategic decisions in the conflict.
Deep dives
Finkelstein's selective use of facts about Gaza
Finkelstein often paints a picture of Gaza as a hellscape by selectively highlighting facts about the lack of electricity, water shortages, high unemployment, and unsuitable medical conditions. However, when looking at basic health measurements such as life expectancy and infant mortality, Gaza's statistics are actually better than the global average. Finkelstein's narrow focus on international law overlooks the need to consider the consequences of applying it, and fails to engage in a moral philosophy discussion on the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The limitations of applying international law
Finkelstein's reliance on international law as the sole basis for resolving the conflict overlooks the practical implications and consequences of implementing the letter of the law. In a moral philosophy context, simply following international law without considering the potential outcomes is insufficient. Additionally, the comparison between the actions of a democracy like Israel and a ruthless dictatorship like Hamas undermines the fairness of applying international law. Israel's need for self-defense and border security cannot be ignored.
Obligations and challenges of negotiating with an enemy like Hamas
Negotiating with Hamas poses unique challenges due to their ideology and the nature of their actions. With their objective being public relations and a desire for their own people to die, rather than any military goals, Hamas becomes difficult to negotiate with. Israel's strategic decisions, including controlling borders and maintaining a presence in the West Bank, are influenced by the need to defend themselves against an enemy that does not value civilian lives. Acknowledging the strategic mistakes made by the Palestinians, such as the second intifada, would contribute to a more honest and productive conversation.
The pitfalls of a narrow international law perspective
Finkelstein's approach, rooted in his expertise as an international law professor, limits his perspective and neglects the broader moral and practical considerations that should be addressed. A broader moral philosophy discussion would require exploring likely scenarios and consequences of strictly adhering to international law, rather than viewing it as the ultimate ethical framework. Comparisons to the legal systems of ruthless dictatorships further expose the limitations of this narrow perspective and highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict.
The Challenge of Making Moral Sense of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The podcast discusses the difficulty of morally evaluating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even when Israeli forces kill people associated with Hamas, there is still a tendency to blame Israel. The speaker struggles with this and believes that Israel cannot have a free hand even if Hamas is engaging in violence. The moral arithmetic is emotionally and psychologically challenging, especially when confronted with distressing visuals of children in the rubble. The speaker highlights the need to consider alternatives and emphasizes the complexity of the moral calculation.
Understanding the World's Reaction and the Risk of Smuggling in Gaza
The podcast explores the world's reaction to the conflict and suggests that the game theory of implying that a country should put its military resources in the midst of civilian areas can lead to a lack of proper reactions. It also considers the risk of smuggling dangerous materials into Gaza, including radioactive substances. The speaker argues that the potential risk of a dirty bomb in Israel due to potential smuggling justifies preventing Gaza from becoming a base for such threats. The options of a reset or a full occupation of Gaza are also debated.