This might seem a minor point, but I wonder if it might actually be significant... at 47:20 PK says "moral disgust at Russia is related to support for Ukraine" -- surely true, but the disgust is maybe less with how Russia has been fighting in Ukraine, than with the decision to invade in the first place. For Russia's critics there was no "moral" way for Russia to invade Ukraine, so any "war crimes" Russia may have committed are sort of beside the point.
With Israel on the other hand, there are many people who on the whole feel it's ok that Israel retaliated after October 7, but say it has been done in the wrong way, too many civilian casualties, etc., and therefore they want to kick Israel out of the club of "civilized" countries or whatever.
But: much as SH talks about the subject I haven't heard him give the "right" ratio of civilians to combatants. And the people in these "civilized" countries don't have experience of living next to Hamas. Which may lead one in the DM-ward direction of thinking that being "civilized" is a luxury for countries with friendly neighbors.
Great episode. However, I’m surprised that the question of whether America would remain true to its high moral ideals in an existential war, is still up for debate. American nuclear deterrence policy explicitly states that it won’t.
Nuclear deterrence relies on America’s commitment to wage a vicious, violent, and potentially civilization ending nuclear war if pushed too far. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of civilians are an acceptable casualty count should the US be pushed into a corner. As the saying goes, this is not a threat, it is a promise.
World order has balanced on this depressingly necessary oath of barbarism since 1945. Not even the long period of peace in the post Cold War decades was enough to roll back this wicked pledge. “We will do horrific things if provoked, so do not provoke us” is an assertion echoed by every nuclear armed nation on earth and is the perverse foundation that modern society is welded to.
Damir is simply right on this point. American barbarism is not off the table, and, unfortunately, rightly so.
I’m a long time listener/reader of the podcast, but this podcast had some of the most messed up things that I’ve heard Shadi say. Shadi said that Israel is not a moral country. How does painting a whole country with such a wide stroke even defensible for a scholar? That’s just crazy.
Then Shadi brings up an example of a secular Israeli who does not believe in the soul. Wtf man.
Shadi speaks frequently about dehumanizing people. Then he goes on to say a group of people is immoral and soulless. Sounds just a tad dehumanizing (and wrong), no?
Oh, wow, I now love Phil Klay. Can we keep him? This was a delightful conversation, and not just because of “You think life has value, Damir, I read your weepy article about Bucha.” Although that remark, and the ensuing discussion, and indeed the link to the (very important) article itself, would already be enough to earn my appreciation. I was glad to hear at least a little bit of discussion, towards the end, about Damir’s insistence on removing morals from the picture in order to see more clearly. There are some fascinating potential contradictions here, both in the sense that such a strong desire for clear sight seems to imply a purposefulness that would push back on nihilism, and also in the sense that Damir is at least partly right; moral notions can cloud our vision.
Really, though, the more important quote, for me, is at 28.04: “Um, well, why should they wage the war morally—well, if you believe in morals, the question kind of answers itself.” Damir insists on making this religious, and Phil obliges; given license to include religious language, he references the effect that war can have upon the soul of the person who wages it. But it’s Shadi who then references the idea of an afterlife. Phil didn’t say that.
An afterlife is a totally different reason to wage war morally. It’s one thing to claim, as Shadi has in his piece on hell, that consequences in the afterlife are good because they help us to be good. It would be another thing again to say that hell is the ultimate reason why we should be good in the first place.
I appreciate, then, that Phil is willing to make the good its own reason. I think that’s a much stronger centre for moral behaviour than fear of punishment would be. Frankly, I think it’s kind of absurd that Shadi thinks of a secular Jew as being harder to persuade than a God-fearing member of Hamas. Go ahead and tell them they are going to hell for all the murdering and raping; see how far you get. But I think you’ll find that hell won’t have much purchase unless they believe it to be wrong. And if they believe it to be wrong, then, how important is the afterlife on top of that?
A great episode as per usual :) On Trump it's an interesting question. I remember reading a piece about Trump that when he was given intelligence on Assad bombing his own people just after he came into office he was deeply affected by it on a visceral level which is why he retaliated with a bombing raid of his own. But apparently he had to be talked down from a much more radical plan. Trump therefore strikes me as a reactionary rather than someone with those first principle instincts that we often grant politicians.
I guess on the question of just war it strikes me that a core component of a just war is a just outcome i.e., you can actually affect change via your action. It strikes me that despite its best efforts the US has not been able to create just outcomes even when it has wanted to. Obama in this sense was even worse because he actively engendered immoral outcomes when thinking about broader 'strategic interests'. But this isn't necessarily an argument to stop trying to achieve good outcomes or a just peace. Rather, it is a cautious warning against military action being used as a flag waving prop (which i think trump would do in a heartbeat if he felt it would win him an election).
You state that Israelis could not view Palestinians as …even human beings, and that they view them as basically people who can be killed. You are wrong. The goals of the Palestinian Arabs, both written into their charters and spoken innumerable times, is to destroy Israel and to expel/kill all the Jews. Since the 1930’s why has every offer for a separate Arab state side by side with Israel been rebuffed? Why are Arab children taught to hate Jews?
You ask whether Israel shares America’s values. You state that Israelis are illiberal and immoral. You are wrong. Israel is a democracy with free elections where everyone is free to participate. There are courts and juries. There is freedom of speech and assembly. Arabs alongside Jews hold positions of power and responsibility. Not so in any of its neighbors. Yes, there are some Palestinians who seek peace with Israel. They are a small minority. And yes there are Jews in Israel who seek the expulsion of the Arabs. They also are in the minority.
I am no fan of Netanyahu. It is callous and shortsighted to refuse to speak of a peaceful solution to the conflict, even if the solution is far into the future. But nevertheless you are wrong when you state Israelis are immoral and prosecuting the war immorally.
You seem to easily see the distinction between combatants and civilians. A man wearing a uniform with a weapon: combatant. A man wearing pajamas with a weapon: ?combatant. A man with a weapon who goes into his home to reload, where his wife and children are sitting: ?combatant. Or he goes into a school or hospital to get more rockets: ?combatant. The man in a kitchen guarding a hostage who is bound: ?combatant. His wife serves tea to the man while the hostage watches: ?combatant.
Your moral proclamations ignore the history of the conflict and the complexities of the present dilemma. Israel has made many serious errors in this war, killing Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers and even hostages. Israel mourns these deaths. I will state again. Israelis are a moral ethical people. If the neighbors were to accept the right of Israel to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and agree to live side by side in peace, this conflict would be over.
For decades Israel’s Arab neighbors have been committed to the genocidal aspirations that Shadi now falsely ascribes to Israel.
What a joke to compare Israel — a country the size of New Jersey, bordered by Hamas, Hezoballah, Syria, and Iran nearby— to the US with respect to a potential war with Mexico.
Faced with the threats Israel lives under, the US, or any other country, really, would go to similar lengths to defend itself
When they get into these ethics questions I always wonder how deep Damir goes with his skepticism. Like does he think there's no "should" about whether you should beat up your kids?
The luxury of American wars specifically is that a tiny segment of the population from remote parts of the country can fight in these wars and the rest of the population can remain ignorant, and oblivious to what the war, the conflict actually consists of. Civilians watch war on reels, YouTube and their Iphones and think they know war. They have absolutely no idea what is actually happening what it takes. To think that Israel is fighting war any differently than how the US would fight the same enemy under the same circumstances is laughable.
There was 40,000+ civilians killed and wounded during the Tet Offensive by the time the US and S. Vietnamese were done in 20 weeks.
I don't think there is necessarily a Christian consensus or one view on how the "other" in war is understood or approached.
@Shadi mentioned "common grace", but that is a relatively modern development in Christian theology post-reformation (i.e. Protestant). There are still Catholics and others who have different conceptions and emphases that don't necessarily fit as neatly with an American 'idealism' or 'exceptionalism' frame (which itself is heavily Protestant).
An aside; Bernard of Clairvaux was once quoted re: Crusades as saying something like "if you're a soldier and you harbor hate in your heart the moment your sword pierces your adversary, then you're a murderer."
Excellent conversation, please have Mr. Klay to return to the pod soon!
Shadi your sympathy really came through this episode, but it is really coloring your analysis of the situation in Gaza. I suggest another thought experiment:
If Israel had abided by the 1949 green lines of its borders. If they never expanded though settlements. If they did everything in their power to restrain their control of Palestinians outside their borders and never pursued annexation through settlements or military occupation, would Palestine be free? Would Israel be allowed to exist in peace? Would this solve the "Palestinian problem"??
I think your bigger issue is that Oct 7 stands on the shoulders of atrocities in this area of the world since the Ottomans. Even in just the past 80 years, the idea of a Jewish state, has ALWAYS been antithetical to those non-Jews living in Palestine. Some of this is justified. Land grabs = bad. But this Land grab was an effort by the (mostly antisemitic) western world to achieve two things:
1) Resolve their own Jewish problems by leveraging Zionism
2) Face up to the reality of the holocaust that their hatred for Jews helped the Nazis implement. and attempt to make amends
Israel is the product of trying to solve the 'problem' of the Jews, it's tragic that this has created the 'problem' of Palestinians. But painting any Jew as a war-monger (as I heard you do) isn't really giving them a fair analysis, even Bibi has motivations beyond killing Palestinians: they are a means to an end of power for him.
Also, since it was so succinctly covered in this episode, I feel compelled to throw my lot in with Damir. Damir is right, there is no moral progress in this world for humankind.
There are two constants:
1)Morality exists on a spectrum where on our better days we settle disputes with greater character and higher levels of compassion and mercy. Society can craft these outcomes but Russia's raping and torturing shows how quickly a civilization can do just the opposite.
2) Humans are prideful. We'll do anything to inflate our ego, so our motivations (even to good ends) will always be suspect.
This might seem a minor point, but I wonder if it might actually be significant... at 47:20 PK says "moral disgust at Russia is related to support for Ukraine" -- surely true, but the disgust is maybe less with how Russia has been fighting in Ukraine, than with the decision to invade in the first place. For Russia's critics there was no "moral" way for Russia to invade Ukraine, so any "war crimes" Russia may have committed are sort of beside the point.
With Israel on the other hand, there are many people who on the whole feel it's ok that Israel retaliated after October 7, but say it has been done in the wrong way, too many civilian casualties, etc., and therefore they want to kick Israel out of the club of "civilized" countries or whatever.
But: much as SH talks about the subject I haven't heard him give the "right" ratio of civilians to combatants. And the people in these "civilized" countries don't have experience of living next to Hamas. Which may lead one in the DM-ward direction of thinking that being "civilized" is a luxury for countries with friendly neighbors.
Great episode. However, I’m surprised that the question of whether America would remain true to its high moral ideals in an existential war, is still up for debate. American nuclear deterrence policy explicitly states that it won’t.
Nuclear deterrence relies on America’s commitment to wage a vicious, violent, and potentially civilization ending nuclear war if pushed too far. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of civilians are an acceptable casualty count should the US be pushed into a corner. As the saying goes, this is not a threat, it is a promise.
World order has balanced on this depressingly necessary oath of barbarism since 1945. Not even the long period of peace in the post Cold War decades was enough to roll back this wicked pledge. “We will do horrific things if provoked, so do not provoke us” is an assertion echoed by every nuclear armed nation on earth and is the perverse foundation that modern society is welded to.
Damir is simply right on this point. American barbarism is not off the table, and, unfortunately, rightly so.
I’m a long time listener/reader of the podcast, but this podcast had some of the most messed up things that I’ve heard Shadi say. Shadi said that Israel is not a moral country. How does painting a whole country with such a wide stroke even defensible for a scholar? That’s just crazy.
Then Shadi brings up an example of a secular Israeli who does not believe in the soul. Wtf man.
Shadi speaks frequently about dehumanizing people. Then he goes on to say a group of people is immoral and soulless. Sounds just a tad dehumanizing (and wrong), no?
Shadi is now trafficking in Jewish blood libel
Getting very close to it
Oh, wow, I now love Phil Klay. Can we keep him? This was a delightful conversation, and not just because of “You think life has value, Damir, I read your weepy article about Bucha.” Although that remark, and the ensuing discussion, and indeed the link to the (very important) article itself, would already be enough to earn my appreciation. I was glad to hear at least a little bit of discussion, towards the end, about Damir’s insistence on removing morals from the picture in order to see more clearly. There are some fascinating potential contradictions here, both in the sense that such a strong desire for clear sight seems to imply a purposefulness that would push back on nihilism, and also in the sense that Damir is at least partly right; moral notions can cloud our vision.
Really, though, the more important quote, for me, is at 28.04: “Um, well, why should they wage the war morally—well, if you believe in morals, the question kind of answers itself.” Damir insists on making this religious, and Phil obliges; given license to include religious language, he references the effect that war can have upon the soul of the person who wages it. But it’s Shadi who then references the idea of an afterlife. Phil didn’t say that.
An afterlife is a totally different reason to wage war morally. It’s one thing to claim, as Shadi has in his piece on hell, that consequences in the afterlife are good because they help us to be good. It would be another thing again to say that hell is the ultimate reason why we should be good in the first place.
I appreciate, then, that Phil is willing to make the good its own reason. I think that’s a much stronger centre for moral behaviour than fear of punishment would be. Frankly, I think it’s kind of absurd that Shadi thinks of a secular Jew as being harder to persuade than a God-fearing member of Hamas. Go ahead and tell them they are going to hell for all the murdering and raping; see how far you get. But I think you’ll find that hell won’t have much purchase unless they believe it to be wrong. And if they believe it to be wrong, then, how important is the afterlife on top of that?
A great episode as per usual :) On Trump it's an interesting question. I remember reading a piece about Trump that when he was given intelligence on Assad bombing his own people just after he came into office he was deeply affected by it on a visceral level which is why he retaliated with a bombing raid of his own. But apparently he had to be talked down from a much more radical plan. Trump therefore strikes me as a reactionary rather than someone with those first principle instincts that we often grant politicians.
I guess on the question of just war it strikes me that a core component of a just war is a just outcome i.e., you can actually affect change via your action. It strikes me that despite its best efforts the US has not been able to create just outcomes even when it has wanted to. Obama in this sense was even worse because he actively engendered immoral outcomes when thinking about broader 'strategic interests'. But this isn't necessarily an argument to stop trying to achieve good outcomes or a just peace. Rather, it is a cautious warning against military action being used as a flag waving prop (which i think trump would do in a heartbeat if he felt it would win him an election).
You state that Israelis could not view Palestinians as …even human beings, and that they view them as basically people who can be killed. You are wrong. The goals of the Palestinian Arabs, both written into their charters and spoken innumerable times, is to destroy Israel and to expel/kill all the Jews. Since the 1930’s why has every offer for a separate Arab state side by side with Israel been rebuffed? Why are Arab children taught to hate Jews?
You ask whether Israel shares America’s values. You state that Israelis are illiberal and immoral. You are wrong. Israel is a democracy with free elections where everyone is free to participate. There are courts and juries. There is freedom of speech and assembly. Arabs alongside Jews hold positions of power and responsibility. Not so in any of its neighbors. Yes, there are some Palestinians who seek peace with Israel. They are a small minority. And yes there are Jews in Israel who seek the expulsion of the Arabs. They also are in the minority.
I am no fan of Netanyahu. It is callous and shortsighted to refuse to speak of a peaceful solution to the conflict, even if the solution is far into the future. But nevertheless you are wrong when you state Israelis are immoral and prosecuting the war immorally.
You seem to easily see the distinction between combatants and civilians. A man wearing a uniform with a weapon: combatant. A man wearing pajamas with a weapon: ?combatant. A man with a weapon who goes into his home to reload, where his wife and children are sitting: ?combatant. Or he goes into a school or hospital to get more rockets: ?combatant. The man in a kitchen guarding a hostage who is bound: ?combatant. His wife serves tea to the man while the hostage watches: ?combatant.
Your moral proclamations ignore the history of the conflict and the complexities of the present dilemma. Israel has made many serious errors in this war, killing Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers and even hostages. Israel mourns these deaths. I will state again. Israelis are a moral ethical people. If the neighbors were to accept the right of Israel to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and agree to live side by side in peace, this conflict would be over.
For decades Israel’s Arab neighbors have been committed to the genocidal aspirations that Shadi now falsely ascribes to Israel.
What a joke to compare Israel — a country the size of New Jersey, bordered by Hamas, Hezoballah, Syria, and Iran nearby— to the US with respect to a potential war with Mexico.
Faced with the threats Israel lives under, the US, or any other country, really, would go to similar lengths to defend itself
When they get into these ethics questions I always wonder how deep Damir goes with his skepticism. Like does he think there's no "should" about whether you should beat up your kids?
Paterfamilias was a thing.
The luxury of American wars specifically is that a tiny segment of the population from remote parts of the country can fight in these wars and the rest of the population can remain ignorant, and oblivious to what the war, the conflict actually consists of. Civilians watch war on reels, YouTube and their Iphones and think they know war. They have absolutely no idea what is actually happening what it takes. To think that Israel is fighting war any differently than how the US would fight the same enemy under the same circumstances is laughable.
There was 40,000+ civilians killed and wounded during the Tet Offensive by the time the US and S. Vietnamese were done in 20 weeks.
I don't think there is necessarily a Christian consensus or one view on how the "other" in war is understood or approached.
@Shadi mentioned "common grace", but that is a relatively modern development in Christian theology post-reformation (i.e. Protestant). There are still Catholics and others who have different conceptions and emphases that don't necessarily fit as neatly with an American 'idealism' or 'exceptionalism' frame (which itself is heavily Protestant).
An aside; Bernard of Clairvaux was once quoted re: Crusades as saying something like "if you're a soldier and you harbor hate in your heart the moment your sword pierces your adversary, then you're a murderer."
Excellent conversation, please have Mr. Klay to return to the pod soon!
Shadi your sympathy really came through this episode, but it is really coloring your analysis of the situation in Gaza. I suggest another thought experiment:
If Israel had abided by the 1949 green lines of its borders. If they never expanded though settlements. If they did everything in their power to restrain their control of Palestinians outside their borders and never pursued annexation through settlements or military occupation, would Palestine be free? Would Israel be allowed to exist in peace? Would this solve the "Palestinian problem"??
I think your bigger issue is that Oct 7 stands on the shoulders of atrocities in this area of the world since the Ottomans. Even in just the past 80 years, the idea of a Jewish state, has ALWAYS been antithetical to those non-Jews living in Palestine. Some of this is justified. Land grabs = bad. But this Land grab was an effort by the (mostly antisemitic) western world to achieve two things:
1) Resolve their own Jewish problems by leveraging Zionism
2) Face up to the reality of the holocaust that their hatred for Jews helped the Nazis implement. and attempt to make amends
Israel is the product of trying to solve the 'problem' of the Jews, it's tragic that this has created the 'problem' of Palestinians. But painting any Jew as a war-monger (as I heard you do) isn't really giving them a fair analysis, even Bibi has motivations beyond killing Palestinians: they are a means to an end of power for him.
Also, since it was so succinctly covered in this episode, I feel compelled to throw my lot in with Damir. Damir is right, there is no moral progress in this world for humankind.
There are two constants:
1)Morality exists on a spectrum where on our better days we settle disputes with greater character and higher levels of compassion and mercy. Society can craft these outcomes but Russia's raping and torturing shows how quickly a civilization can do just the opposite.
2) Humans are prideful. We'll do anything to inflate our ego, so our motivations (even to good ends) will always be suspect.