The Gist: Paul D. Miller on Israel, International Law, and the Limits of Justice

Podcast: The Gist
Host: Mike Pesca (Peach Fish Productions)
Guest: Paul D. Miller, Professor at Georgetown, former CIA and White House staffer
Episode Date: January 30, 2026
Theme: Examining the complexities of international law, war, and justice, focusing on the Israel-Hamas conflict and why narratives of "oppressor vs. oppressed" or good vs. evil often fail to capture reality.

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode features an in-depth conversation with Paul D. Miller, an academic, writer, and former intelligence officer. The discussion focuses on the muddy realities of conflicts like the one in Israel and Gaza, the limitations of international law, and the inadequacy of viewing world affairs in stark binaries. Miller draws from his scholarship, government service, and his recent article "White Hats and Black Hats in the Middle East" to challenge simplistic narratives and advocate for a more nuanced understanding of justice, war, and the responsibilities of nations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Temptation of Simple Narratives

(09:45–11:20)

• Pesca and Miller critique the tendency to divide conflicts into tidy categories of oppressed/oppressor, good/evil, or racial binaries.
• Miller uses the old Western trope of "white hats vs. black hats" to illustrate this:
  — “We want a very clear, very simple narrative with easily labeled good guys. Easily labeled bad guys. Sometimes the world is that simple ... But other times there's just a whole lot of mess.” (Paul D. Miller, 11:20)

2. Just War Theory and Gray Areas

(13:28–16:57)

• Miller explains the "just war tradition," which separates questions of whether a war is justified (just cause) and whether it is fought justly (conduct).
• Uncomfortable facts: Even groups with a just cause, like Israel after October 7th, can go 'overboard' in response, making questionable decisions in the fog of war.
• “They had just cause, but there was a sense of panic and anger and wrath that may have led them to go a bit beyond what was necessary ... that's what I do with it. It's a messy situation.” (Paul D. Miller, 13:28)

3. Historical Injustice vs. Present Conduct

(15:33–18:15)

• Pesca raises whether grievances from history justify violent tactics now.
• Miller: Past injustice cannot excuse present war crimes or terrorism. The means must still conform to norms of justice.
• “No matter what the historical arguments are, there are still some rules when you’re fighting a war. ... You don’t use war as an excuse to murder civilians, to murder women and children ... That’s true no matter what's true of history.” (Paul D. Miller, 15:33)

4. The Double Bind of Palestinian Claims and Hamas

(16:57–18:49)

• Miller argues Hamas is “the greatest enemy of the Palestinian people” as it taints legitimate claims with terrorism.
• Both agree a Palestinian state is legitimate in principle, but that doesn’t legitimize terrorism.

5. Science Fiction as Analogy: Dune and Moral Shades of Gray

(19:50–21:13)

• Miller uses Frank Herbert’s Dune universe:
  — The Atreides (protagonists) are "better" than the Harkonnens but are not without moral failings. — “If you’re the Atreides, be careful about how much self righteousness you cultivate by telling yourself, hey, at least I’m not the Harkonnen. You’re missing the point if that's the standard you’re comparing yourself to.” (Paul D. Miller, 19:55)

6. Accountability, World War II, and Selective Justice

(22:12–27:43)

• Pesca draws parallels between Israel’s actions and controversial conduct of Allied powers in WWII (bombing campaigns, atomic weapons), as well as US accountability after war crimes (e.g., My Lai massacre in Vietnam).
• Miller underscores the importance of internal, not external, accountability: — “…wouldn't it be a credit to their country and their national honor if they then took some steps in the aftermath of this conflict ... to seek out justice within their own ranks, if necessary?” (Paul D. Miller, 25:21)

7. Transitional Justice: Justice vs. Peace

(26:22–27:43)

• Miller references post-Communist Europe and the American Civil War as examples where states have balanced justice and conciliation differently.
• “There is such a thing as transitional justice, where you kind of pursue a symbolic act of justice and then you just kind of move on.” (Paul D. Miller, 26:22)

8. The Limits of International Law

(33:36–40:20)

• Miller differentiates between law and justice, arguing that international law is more suggestion than strict rule:
  — “I don't think law is the same thing as justice. ... It's more like … the pirate code ... They're more like suggestions.” (Paul D. Miller, 33:47)
• International law works best among mutually recognized states with true reciprocity, and less so where countries (or blocs) view others as illegitimate (e.g., Israel in its region).

9. The Double Standard Against Israel

(35:54–38:03)

• Both agree that Israel is held to a higher and selective standard by much of the world.
• Miller: “There’s a double standard ... Europe in particular ... They hold Israel up to a standard that they don’t bother holding others up to, and they go out of their way to hold Israel under very tight scrutiny ...” (Paul D. Miller, 37:01)

10. What Israel Should Do Now

(43:01–45:08)

• Miller advocates for a renewed commitment to a two-state solution, contingent on both credible Palestinian leadership and Israeli openness.
• “There absolutely needs to be a Palestinian state. That’s what the UN said in 47. That’s what Israel itself said in 1995 ... it's important to talk about it. … If you want to be serious about a long-term solution ... that is part of the answer.” (Paul D. Miller, 43:01)

11. Zionism and Student Views

(45:08–46:48)

• Miller candidly describes himself as a “Zionist” and challenges his students' definitions:
  — “I think at a minimal level it simply means a belief in the right of Jewish self determination. That’s what it meant in the 19th century ... And I think that’s true.” (Paul D. Miller, 45:21)
• Changing minds is slow; he hopes to plant seeds for more nuanced understanding.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the limitations of binary thinking:
  “We want a very clear, very simple narrative with easily labeled good guys ... Sometimes the world is that simple ... But other times there's just a whole lot of mess.” (Paul D. Miller, 11:20)
• On war crimes and just cause:
  “Just because we're in the right doesn't mean we get to go out and, you know, murder British civilians on purpose. ... Hamas as a group denies Israel’s right to exist and they practice terrorism. ... That’s just wrong, no matter what the cause is.” (Paul D. Miller, 16:57)
• On international law vs. justice:
  "I don't think law is the same thing as justice. And I think that international law in particular ... is more like a ... Pirates of the Caribbean ... They're more like suggestions. Right. That's international law." (Paul D. Miller, 33:47)
• On the two-state solution:
  "There absolutely needs to be a Palestinian state ... it's important to talk about it ... If you want to be serious about a long-term solution ... that is part of the answer." (Paul D. Miller, 43:01)

Timestamps for Significant Segments

• Introduction to Paul D. Miller & topic context: 09:45–11:20
• Critique of narrative simplicity: 11:20–13:28
• Just War theory applied to Israel/Hamas: 13:28–16:57
• Historical grievances, terrorism, and rules of war: 16:57–18:49
• "Dune" analogy for moral complexity: 19:50–21:13
• Accountability in conflict, Israel and beyond: 22:12–27:43
• International law's limits, double standards: 33:36–40:20
• Recommended path forward for Israel/Palestinians: 43:01–45:08
• Teaching, Zionism, and shifting perspectives: 45:08–46:48

Conclusion

Paul D. Miller offers a measured but challenging perspective on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the ways we discuss justice and law in the international arena. He urges skepticism of both simplistic narratives and the inflexible application of international law, calls for greater moral introspection by all parties, and reiterates the necessity—though not the current plausibility—of a two-state solution as the kernel of any just peace in the region.