Author Archives: Carl Islam

‘In antiquity what warnings were given about corruption of the soul through economic exploitation?’

Posted on by


AI – ‘In antiquity, warnings about the “corruption of the soul” through economic exploitation were most prominently voiced by the Prophets of Ancient Israel, who frequently condemned high priests and religious elites for their roles in such systemic abuse. 

While “high priest” was an official title, the most famous critiques of this specific corruption came from figures who challenged the priestly establishment:

Prophetic Critiques of Priestly Corruption 

  • Micah of Moresheth: Micah explicitly condemned the religious leadership of Judah, stating that “her priests teach for a price” and her leaders “judge for a bribe”. He warned that this economic exploitation of the poor was a betrayal of their covenant with God and would lead to divine judgment.
  • Jeremiah: Known for his “Temple Sermon,” Jeremiah accused the priests of his day of being ungodly and “dealing falsely”. He argued that their focus on ritual while ignoring justice and the exploitation of the “sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow” had fundamentally corrupted the nation’s spiritual standing.
  • Hosea & Amos: These contemporaries warned that dishonest economic practices, such as using “dishonest scales,” were symptoms of a rotted soul and a society that had abandoned spiritual integrity for material gain. 

Historical Examples of Priestly Exploitation

  • The Sons of Eli (Hophni and Phinehas): In the 11th century BC, these priests are cited as the quintessential examples of corruption. They exploited their positions for personal gain, forcibly taking the best portions of sacrifices and treating the offering of the Lord with contempt.
  • First-Century Temple Establishment: Historical accounts from Flavius Josephus and Rabbinic literature describe the high priestly families (like those of Annas and Caiaphas) as being widely perceived as corrupt and oppressive. They were accused of using their political power to exploit the Jewish populace, leading to the public perception that the Temple itself had become a “den of robbers”. 

Other Ancient Perspectives

  • Ancient Egypt: While high priests often held immense economic power through temple land ownership, the Great Edict of Horemheb contains warnings against royal and religious officials who extorted the poor under the guise of collecting taxes.
  • Ancient Greece: While not “high priests” in the same sense, figures like Solon acted as mediators in 6th-century BC Athens to stop the exploitation of poor farmers who were being sold into slavery for debt, framing his reforms as a necessary restoration of “justice and stability”. …’

‘How can any moral person justify or support this!’

Posted on by

See – ‘The End of Israel: The Ultimate Evidence’: https://lnkd.in/eb4P3dZD

Scroll forward to 11:20 – The woman on the right holding a ‘noose’ in her right hand and a symbolic ‘lethal injection’ in her left hand – ‘celebrating Israeli plans to introduce the death penalty for Palestinians’, is the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Her named is Limor Son Har-Melech, and she is a member of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party.

The full trial on the merits of the case brought against Israel at the ICJ in the Hague is expected to reach oral hearings in early to mid-2027, i.e. in less than 12 months time.

I wonder if meanwhile, any Rabbi, Jewish Community Leader, or Westminster Politician, will unequivocally and unconditionally condemn the depraved behaviour of Limor Son Har-Melech, or whether they will seek to excuse or justify it – or just acquiesce by turning a ‘Nelsonian Blind Eye’? – Let us see how they behave.

I also wonder whether the ICC will investigate Limor Son Har-Melech for inciting:

(i) the mass murder of civilians;
(ii) War Crimes;
(iii) Crimes against Humanity; and
(iv) Genocide.

I expect that the image of this depraved woman holding up a ‘death noose’ and symbolic ‘lethal injection’, will become a defining image of the ‘Genocidal Intent’ of the people she represents.

Is this the moral cause for which mothers and fathers in America are giving up their sons and daughter to fight, and to die for?

See also:


‘In the negotiation of an International Dispute the least effective sources of power are position and coercion.’

Posted on by

Before going offline from LinkedIn for at least six months in order to maximize my available time for writing my next book – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, I could not resist one more post.

I ma currently reading the ‘Handbook of Global And Multicultural Negotiation’ by Christopher W.Moore and Peter J.Woodrow (2020) which contains the following advice:

‘in the context of negotiations, the least effective sources of power are position and coercion. Positional power works only if the holder also possesses a number of other sources of power, such as perceived legitimate authority. Coercive power is effective only if a party actually possesses it, is willing to use it, can overcome resistance from the counterpart that the use of force provokes, and has accurately assess the ability of the counterpart to withstand the exercise of this form of power. If these conditions are not met, the use of coercive power will not only be ineffective, that may result in unanticipated negative consequences and make a situation worse. Negotiators should use only the minimum amount of power needed to obtain a desired change. Overuse of any source of power may cause resistance on the part of a counterpart.’

As I was taught by the Head of Legal of the Rolls-Royce industrial Power group at the tender age of 28, before being dispatched to the Far East to negotiate a multi-million pound ‘major project’ contract – ‘only ever make a threat, if you have the authority to carry through and are willing to do so. Otherwise, you will lose all credibility as a negotiator.’

This is wise advice that I follow to this day.

When as a negotiator you exercise power, there is no going back, so power should only be exercised when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the consequences may prove to be catastrophic.

The company was awarded the contract.

In my view, the equivalent of winning a contract in a conflict resolution scenario, is settlement. I consider that the wisdom outlined above transfers across and applies equally to the Mediation of an International Dispute. That is why a theatrical display of coercive power which cannot logistically be carried through with success, predetermines failure. In other words, it is an elementary and catastrophic mistake.

Comments added:

  • This by the way, is why it is so dangerous to bluff, i.e. because your counterpart may call your bluff! Then if a decision is made to go up the ‘escalation ladder’, without thoroughly thought through ‘logistical’ planning and preparation, then the outcome for the aggressor will be failure. Likewise, if their counterpart has anticipated the escalatory move and has prepared, then the outcome will be far worse, because not only will the aggressor have failed to achieve their stated strategic objectives, they will also have walked into a trap – which will result in a ‘quagmire’!

‘Mediation is an opportunity to achieve the best outcome available in the real-world.’

Posted on by

I am not convinced that owner/managers of SME’s understand this.

The following is a brief extract from my book, the 2nd Edition of the Contentious Probate Handbook (2025), published by the Law Society’, which contains a chapter about ADR including a detailed discussion of both Mediation and Mediation Advocacy.

These points apply equally to Commercial Mediation.

‘In the experience and opinion of the author, the cut and thrust world of trust and estate litigation has very little to do with abstract notions of justice, and is actually more about perceptions and calculation. So, unless a party needs a court determination to move forward, or the court must be involved, i.e. because the case involves children or other vulnerable beneficiaries, then why not do a deal instead? In the author’s experience, there is nearly always a deal to be done.

Paradoxically, while a claimant may have gone to court or threatened to issue proceedings because they are being ignored or stonewalled, the voices in the court room are not those of the parties, but of lawyers and judges who have no actual ‘skin in the game.’

Consequently, how participants speak to each other in a mediation, either directly, or through their legal representatives or the mediator, is an opportunity to show respect by allowing the other to be heard. That can move the parties along from deadlock about their respective positions to doing a deal in their mutual interests. The skill of allowing a participant in mediation their voice, i.e., the right to be heard, is linked to both ‘how you talk’ and to ’empathetic listening’, because to switch the dynamic from ‘confrontation’ to ‘collaboration’, you must first show a person that:

(a)   he has been heard; and

(b)   you understand his position, and the underlying reasons.

The unifying factor in all probate and trust disputes is the composition of the estate/ trust asset pool, and its value. It is not uncommon for litigation costs to exceed the value of an estate. Therefore, the earlier parties in dispute become participants in a process of negotiation, the more likely it is, that each will receive a slice of a larger pie (i.e. of the estate/trust fund) if the dispute settles at or shortly after mediation.

The overwhelming majority of contentious probate/trust disputes never reach trial, because parties agree the structure and terms of a legally robust compromise. ‘The overall success rate of mediation remains very high, with an aggregate settlement rate of 92%.’ (Google – Tenth-CEDR-Mediation-Audit-2023.pdf). This figure is for all civil mediations.

Mediation may also be an opportunity to transform an acrimonious probate/trust dispute into a joint-problem solving exercise, by applying estate planning principles to discover and unlock tax-efficiency post-death, resulting in the enlargement of the estate/trust fund pie for settlement.’

‘Visual Literacy.’

Posted on by


AI –‘Visual literacy is the ability to “read” an image much like you would a text, moving beyond a simple “like” or “dislike” to decode the specific choices an artist made to communicate. It involves active seeing —consciously attending to how an image is constructed to uncover its deeper emotional, narrative, and conceptual layers. 

The 4-Step “Feldman Method” for Reading Art

A foundational technique in art education, the Feldman Method breaks the process into four objective and subjective stages: 

Description (The “What”): Identify only observable facts. List the subject matter, colours, lines, shapes, and objects without trying to explain them yet.

  1. Analysis (The “How”): Examine how the work is organised. Look at the composition, balance, contrast, and focal points. Ask yourself: “How do these elements guide my eye through the piece?”.
  2. Interpretation (The “Why”): Derive meaning based on your observations. Consider the emotions evoked, potential symbolism, and what the artist might be trying to say.
  3. Evaluation (The Judgment): Decide if the work is successful. Does it effectively communicate its idea? Is it innovative or moving? This judgment should be based on your previous analysis rather than just personal taste. 

Techniques to See Beyond the Surface

To uncover complex ideas, you can use these specific strategies:

  • Slow Looking: Spend at least five minutes with a single work. Most people look for only 15–30 seconds, but slow looking allows your eyes to adjust and notice subtle details like brushstrokes or hidden patterns that only emerge with time.
  • Identify Visual Language: Learn the “alphabet” of art—line, shape, color, texture, and space. For instance, jagged lines might suggest tension, while muted cool colours can evoke sadness or calm.
  • Contextualisation: Research the “who, when, and where.” Knowing the historical, cultural, or biographical context—such as Picasso painting Guernica during the Spanish Civil War—instantly shifts a piece from “abstract shapes” to a powerful social statement.
  • Notice Absences: Ask what is not there. What has the artist cropped out? What is implied but left unpainted? These omissions are often as meaningful as what is included.
  • Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS): Use three simple questions to guide your inquiry: “What’s going on in this picture?”, “What do you see that makes you say that?”, and “What more can we find?”. 

Why It Matters

Developing visual literacy serves as a “mirror,” revealing what you value based on what you notice. Beyond the gallery, these skills build critical thinking and resistance to manipulation in an image-saturated world, helping you decode everything from advertising to political propaganda. … 

Visual literacy is a critical skill for interpreting ancient art because, in many early societies, images functioned as the primary language of communication. While modern audiences are heavily text-based, ancient cultures were often image-based, with visual symbols serving as a more accessible and widely understood “lingua franca” than written words. 

Developing this skill is essential for several key reasons:1. Decoding a Visual “Grammar”Ancient art is not merely decorative; it operates like a language with its own vocabulary and syntax. A visually literate viewer can: 

Identify specific codes: For example, in Buddhist art, the specific position of a statue’s hands (mudras) carries distinct symbolic meanings that are only “readable” to those with visual training.

Understand compositional structure: Elements like balance, movement, and scale were intentionally used by ancient artists to direct a viewer’s eye and emphasize certain power dynamics or narratives. 

2. Navigating Contextual and Cultural NuancesSymbols are rarely universal; their meanings are deeply rooted in specific historical and social frameworks. 

Cultural Specificity: A symbol representing “purity” in one culture might signify “mourning” in another. Visual literacy allows researchers to avoid misinterpreting symbols through a modern or ethnocentric lens.

Evolution of Meaning: Symbols change over time. Visual literacy helps track how an ancient symbol (like the swastika’s original spiritual meaning) can be reappropriated or subverted in later contexts. 

3. Bridging the “Literacy Gap”In ancient societies with low textual literacy rates, visual icons were the primary tools for education and political persuasion. 

Mass Communication: Religious icons acted as focal points for worship, while political monuments reinforced a ruler’s legitimacy to a population that could not read official decrees.

Primary Historical Record: Because iconography often captured a broader range of daily life and social values than elite-authored texts, visual literacy is a vital tool for archaeologists to reconstruct the worldviews of the past. 

4. Recognizing “Mixed-Media” IntentionsMany ancient artifacts combine text and imagery. Visual literacy reveals that images often held more weight than the accompanying inscriptions. 

Iconocentric Archives: In the Persepolis Fortification Archive, research shows that officials often applied seals in a way that highlighted the iconographic symbol while partially or completely obscuring the written text, suggesting the image was the “primary reading material”. …’

See – https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0691171947?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

‘Nexus between Geopolitical & Humanitarian Mediation’

Posted on by

This morning when I woke up I had the insight that instead of ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ being proposed and brought about from the top of the institutional architecture of the Rules Base Order, i.e. by the UN, that instead it could be engineered from below, i.e. by state actors themselves.

In other words that in ‘International Relations’ and ‘Mediation Theory’, there is a ‘nexus’ between ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ and ‘Humanitarian Mediation’.

‘Geopolitical Mediation’ [‘GM‘] is a facilitated dialogue between ‘stakeholders’ [‘S‘] to:

(i) discuss the existence of shared/common interests; and

(ii) negotiate the accommodation of competing interests, by jointly
developing and implementing, a strategy of ‘convergence’, built upon the foundation of common ground.

In other words, GM is a process through which S can engineer a new ‘political order’ that is:

(i) mutually beneficial; and

(ii) more productive to each S, than the individual pursuit of their own competing interests. This is achieved by transforming geo-political ‘competitors’ into ‘partners’.

See – ‘The geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Westward focus’: https://lnkd.in/e_Vdf8Hr

To listen to the Professor’s reply to my Q. scroll forward to 57 minutes – ‘Potential for strategic convergence – a Geopolitical pivot upon which conflict can be avoided?’

As a diplomatic process GM may result in a road-map for multi-lateral ‘progressive-realism’ through innovative ‘partnerships and alliances’ formed with states in the Global South based upon a ‘convergence of interests.’

Britain through its historical ‘networks’ could become a pioneer.

AI – ‘In international relations and mediation theory, the nexus between geopolitical mediation and humanitarian mediation lies in their operational interdependence and the way they navigate the tension between “elite” power interests and the protection of vulnerable populations. While they often serve different primary objectives, they increasingly overlap in modern “multipolar” conflict zones where humanitarian aid becomes a strategic tool of geopolitical influence. 

1. Functional Interdependence

  • Access vs. Stability: Humanitarian mediation acts as a critical precursor or “door-opener” for broader geopolitical negotiations. By securing local ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, or aid access, it builds the foundational trust and “de-escalation” required for high-level political settlement.
  • Tactical Complementarity: Humanitarian efforts (often Track II or III) and geopolitical efforts (Track I) are frequently “complementary”. A reduction in violence through local humanitarian agreements can provide the breathing room necessary for a long-term geopolitical peace process to take root. 

2. Strategic Overlap and Risks

  • The “Chess Board” Effect: Every local conflict now has a geopolitical dimension as great powers compete for global influence. Consequently, humanitarian mediation is no longer isolated; it takes place in a “complex geopolitical context” where actors like the UN must navigate the interests of major powers (e.g., the P5 of the UNSC) to maintain mandate and leverage.
  • Instrumentalisation of Aid: In a multipolar world, humanitarian aid can become “hostage” to geopolitical trends. Major powers may use humanitarian missions to showcase capabilities, build coalitions, or gain political access to a region, effectively blurring the lines between “soft” humanitarian power and “hard” geopolitical strategy. 

3. Divergence in Principles

  • Neutrality vs. Interests: Humanitarian mediation is strictly guided by the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality. In contrast, geopolitical mediators are often driven by specific political, economic, or security interests related to their own strategic positioning.
  • Scope and Duration: Geopolitical mediation focuses on national/international legal frameworks and long-term “stable governance”. Humanitarian mediation is typically a short-term, “needs-oriented” problem-solving process intended to improve immediate safety and access to basic services. 
  • Key Comparison Table
Feature  Humanitarian Mediation Geopolitical Mediation
Primary Goal Protect civilians and ensure aid access Resolve political disputes and maintain regional order
Guiding Logic Needs-based and impartial Interest-based and strategic
Primary Actors NGOs, UN agencies, local “insiders” State diplomats, heads of state, regional blocs
Temporal Focus Immediate, life-saving reprieve Long-term peace and stability

See also:

‘Authoritarianism v. Free Press.’

Posted on by

See:

‘War spirals as Trump admin threatens media for positive coverage’ – https://lnkd.in/eJyaxBxr

I am going offline from LinkedIn for the next three to six months, in order to focus on the writing of my next book – the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

I wonder whether the fundamental right of journalists and media organisations to operate, report, and disseminate information without censorship, interference, or fear of retaliation from governments or other powerful entities, will exist when I return?

Are we fast approaching a ‘tipping-point’, beyond which ‘journalistic freedom’, i.e. a Free Press – which is a pillar of Democracy, will have been displaced by communication strategies used by governments to:

(i) foster national pride;
(ii) justify military actions – and axiomatically – ‘conscription’; and
(iii) consolidate domestic support, by blending national identity with state interests –

i.e. ‘state run patriotic’ propaganda’?

See also – ‘FCC chair threatens broadcasters’ licenses over Iran war coverage’:
https://lnkd.in/ed8G9q_6

See also:


‘Ethical challenges in Humanitarian Mediation.’

Posted on by

Humanitarian Mediation – which is the process of facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties in order to secure access, protection, or aid for civilians, faces unique ethical challenges that often pit core humanitarian principles against the messy realities of conflict. 

The most critical ethical challenges include:

1. Compromising Core Principles for Access: 

  • ‘The Neutrality Trap’ – Mediators may face pressure to remain silent about human rights abuses to maintain a relationship with a warring party. This ‘silence for access’ can make mediators appear complicit or biased.
  • ‘Challenges to Impartiality’ – Armed groups often demand that aid be directed to their supporters in exchange for safe passage. Mediators must decide if providing ‘conditional’ aid to some is better than providing no aid at all.
  • ‘Erosion of Independence’ – Dependence on state funding or military escorts for security can lead to the perception, or reality, that the mediation is serving a political agenda rather than purely humanitarian needs. 

2. Legitimacy and Engagement Dilemmas:

  • ‘Recognizing “Controversial” Actors’ – Engaging with designated terrorist groups or oppressive regimes can be seen as providing them with undeserved international legitimacy.
  • ‘The “Body Bag Factor” & Risk Transfer’ – Humanitarian organisations face the ethical burden of deciding whether to send staff into high-risk zones. A growing concern is ‘risk transfer,’ where international NGOs mitigate their own risk by assigning dangerous tasks to local staff or partners who have fewer protections. 

3. Unintended Long-term Harms:

  • ‘Sustaining the Conflict’ – There is a constant fear that mediation and subsequent aid deliveries may inadvertently prolong a war by providing resources that warring parties can tax, divert, or use to alleviate their own responsibility for civilian welfare.
  • ‘Market & System Destabilisation’ – Facilitating large-scale free aid can destroy local economies or create a ‘dependency trap’ where populations become reliant on external support that eventually disappears. 

4. Operational & Cultural Clashes:

  • ‘Incommensurable Values’ – Mediators often navigate ‘red lines’ (non-negotiable principles) and ‘grey zones’ where International Humanitarian Law may clash with local cultural norms or the immediate political reality on the ground.
  • ‘Power Imbalances’ – Powerful donor nations may dictate the terms of mediation, potentially ignoring the specific needs or self-determination of the local communities they aim to help.

‘How can conflict be transformed through Humanitarian Mediation?’

Posted on by

Humanitarian Mediation transforms conflict by shifting the focus from entrenched political positions to shared humanitarian needs.

This specialized form of mediation uses the delivery of aid and the protection of civilians as a bridge to dialogue, often when formal political channels are blocked. 

Conflict is transformed through three primary functions: 

(i) ‘Humanitarian Access as a Bridge’ – Mediators negotiate ‘corridors of tranquillity’ or local ceasefires to allow for aid delivery. These small-scale agreements build initial trust and demonstrate the benefits of cooperation without requiring immediate political concessions.

(ii) ‘Information and Uncertainty Reduction’ – Conflict is often fueled by uncertainty about an opponent’s intentions. Neutral mediators provide credible information and verify adherence to local agreements, reducing the fear of ‘defection’ from a peace process.

(iii) ‘Empowerment of Local Communities’ – By facilitating direct dialogue between affected communities and armed actors, mediation moves away from patronising ‘top-down’ aid. It allows communities to voice their own protection needs, transforming them from passive victims into active stakeholders in their own safety. 

Humanitarian Mediation typically follows a structured, ten-step journey: 

  1. ‘Conflict Analysis’ – In-depth situational assessment.
  2. ‘Pre-mediation: Separate meetings with involved parties.
  3. ‘Opening’ – Establishing agreed-upon ground rules.
  4. ‘Storytelling’ – Sharing experiences and concerns from all sides.
  5. ‘Agenda Setting’ – Defining the specific problems to be resolved.
  6. ‘Exploration’ – Deep-diving into the agenda items.
  7. ‘Solution Generation’ – Collaborative brainstorming for viable options.
  8. ‘Adoption’ – Selecting commonly acceptable solutions.
  9. ‘Action Plan’ – Finalising the agreement and implementation steps.
  10. ‘Follow-up’ –  Monitoring progress and managing new crises.

Transformation is not guaranteed and faces several hurdles:

1.      ‘Neutrality Risks’ – Humanitarians may be perceived as partial if aid is seen to benefit one side more than the other.

2.      ‘Spoilers’ – Groups who benefit from continued violence may actively sabotage agreements to maintain their power or resources.

3.      ‘Short-term Focus’ – A focus on immediate life-saving can sometimes delay addressing the deep-rooted political causes of a conflict. 

See also:

‘Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.’

Posted on by

AI – ‘Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a classic philosophical story from his work The Republic. It serves as a metaphor for the human condition, contrasting our limited sensory perceptions with true knowledge and enlightenment.

The Story

  • The Prisoners: People are chained in an underground cave from childhood, forced to face a wall.
  • The Shadows: Behind them, a fire burns. Between the fire and the prisoners, people carry objects that cast shadows on the wall.
  • The Illusion: Having never seen anything else, the prisoners believe these shadows are the only true reality.
  • The Escape: One prisoner is freed and dragged out into the sunlight. Initially, the light is painful and blinding, but eventually, they see the real world—trees, flowers, and the sun itself.
  • The Return: When the freed prisoner returns to enlighten the others, they cannot see well in the darkness. The other prisoners mock them, believing the journey ruined their eyes, and they resist being freed.
  •  

Key Symbolism

Element  Symbolic Meaning
The Cave The superficial world of sensory perception.
The Prisoners The majority of people living in ignorance.
The Shadows False beliefs, illusions, and misleading perceptions.
The Sun The Form of the Good—the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.
The Journey Out The difficult and often painful process of education and enlightenment.

Why It Matters Today

The allegory explores the struggle between knowledge and belief. It suggests that what we perceive through our senses is often just a “shadow” of a higher, more perfect reality—a concept known as Plato’s Theory of Forms. Modern stories like The Matrix and The Truman Show are often viewed as contemporary retellings of this ancient metaphor.’ 

See also:

Game Theory #13: Epstein’s World