Ep. 2538 Israel Debate: Walter Block vs. Dave Smith
Aug 31, 2024
auto_awesome
Walter Block, a libertarian economist and philosopher, debates with Dave Smith, a comedian and political commentator, on the contentious Israel-Hamas conflict. They discuss the ethical dilemmas of self-defense and the moral implications of government actions in the region. The conversation crucially examines libertarian principles in relation to historical territorial claims and critiques of state violence. Both guests encourage a nuanced understanding of rights, responsibilities, and the importance of avoiding political interference in humanitarian crises.
Dave Smith argues that supporting Israel contradicts libertarian principles due to the state's coercive nature and moral obligations to all individuals.
Walter Block defends Israel's actions as necessary self-defense against Hamas, citing Israel's greater adherence to civilizational values despite its flaws.
Both guests agree on the necessity of ending U.S. financial support for Israel, advocating for negotiations over military intervention to resolve the conflict.
Deep dives
Disagreement on Libertarian Principles
The discussion begins with Dave Smith's assertion that supporting Israel in its conflict with Hamas contradicts core libertarian principles. He highlights that the Israeli government operates extensively under state control, with significant land ownership and conscription, which fundamentally opposes the libertarian rejection of governmental coercion. Dave emphasizes that there is a moral obligation to uphold rights for all individuals, including Palestinians, and posits that the violent actions taken by Israel against Gaza cannot be justified through libertarian ethics. He argues that violence against innocents is unacceptable, regardless of the aggressor's identity.
Comparative Justice in the Conflict
Walter Block counters Dave's position by framing the issue as one of comparative justice—assessing the moral standing of Israel against that of Hamas. He acknowledges Israel's imperfections and its significant state control issues but argues that Hamas represents a greater threat to liberty and is more fundamentally opposed to libertarian principles. Walter reflects on the historical context of the conflict, positing that that Hamas's stated objectives—including the annihilation of Jews—necessitate Israel's defensive actions, positioning Israel as the lesser evil in this scenario. He suggests that, in contrast to Hamas, Israel demonstrates a degree of civilizational values, like less indiscriminate violence against civilians.
Rights of Return and Historical Claims
The conversation shifts to historical claims regarding land ownership and the rights of return for Palestinians and Jews. Dave disputes the justification for Jewish claims to land based on historical occupancy, arguing that Palestinians—having lived in the region for generations—have homesteading rights to their properties that must be respected. In contrast, Walter asserts that Jews have a historical claim to the land that predates modern political entities and emphasizes the Jewish experience of persecution, positioning it as a factor that complicates the moral evaluations of the conflict. Walter believes that the rights of eviction must consider the aggressions faced by Jews historically and their situation during the formation of Israel.
Self-Defense and Humanitarian Concerns
On the subject of self-defense, Walter maintains that Israel's actions, even in the face of significant civilian casualties, can be justified under the principle of self-defense against a sworn enemy. He argues that Hamas engages in tactics that place its own civilians in danger, thereby complicating Israel's response to threats posed by Hamas militants. This is contrasted with Dave's insistence that indiscriminate killing, akin to what is witnessed in Gaza, cannot be deemed self-defense. Dave advocates for the recognition of innocence and human rights, regardless of the surrounding context, emphasizing that libertarian ethics must be adhered to irrespective of the complex political narrative.
Conclusion on Government and Intervention
Both participants express agreement that the U.S. government's financial support for Israel should cease, pointing out that U.S. intervention exacerbates the conflict. They emphasize that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not fund either state's militaristic campaigns and should instead encourage negotiations and peaceful resolutions. Dave articulates a broader libertarian position, suggesting that no government actions can be purely benevolent, advocating skepticism toward any government narratives. Ultimately, both agree that a genuine resolution requires the cessation of violent actions and a reevaluation of external support and intervention.
