Transcript: In Defense of Israel, Part II: Walter Block and Alan Futerman

 

Date of recording: June 3, 2024, The Savvy Street Show

Hosts: Roger Bissell and Marco den Ouden. Guests: Walter Block and Alan Futerman

 

For those who prefer to watch the video, it is here.

Editor’s Note: The Savvy Street Show’s AI-generated transcripts are edited for removal of repetitions and pause terms, and for grammar and clarity. Explanatory references are added in parentheses. Material edits are advised to the reader as edits [in square brackets].

 

Roger Bissell

Hello and welcome to The Savvy Street Show. My name is Roger Bissell, and I’m standing in here for our regular host, Vinay Kohatkar. Today on The Savvy Street Show we have two distinguished guests that we had the pleasure of interviewing a couple of weeks ago, and they are back for part two of “In Defense of Israel.” Also here again is my co-host Marco den Ouden. Marco is a well-known libertarian and publisher of the blog The Jolly Libertarian, and he is going to introduce our special guests. Welcome to tonight’s show, Marco.

 

Marco den Ouden

Well, thank you, Roger. One of our guests is very well known to the audience and to libertarians in general. Walter Block made a big splash for himself in the libertarian movement in 1976 with his book Defending the Undefendable. And it’s still available, it’s still in print, and it’s a modern classic. I don’t think there’s anybody in the libertarian movement who hasn’t heard of it. He’s also considered to be the preeminent anarcho-capitalist alive today, a student of Murray Rothbard’s.

Our other guest, Alan Futerman, is a PhD candidate in political economy at King’s College, London. He has a BA in economics from UCEL in Argentina and a master’s degree in finance from Torcuato de Tela University in Argentina. He’s been an adjunct professor of Institutional Economics at UCEL in Argentina. He’s published in journals like The International Journal of Finance and Economics, The Review of Austrian Economics, and The Journal of Financial Economic Policy. His works have been published in various, diverse publications like The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, and The Jerusalem Post. And he’s co-authored a book called Commodities as an Asset Class with Ivo A. Sarjanovic, and two books with our other guest, Walter Block, The Austro-Libertarian Point of View and The Classical Liberal Case for Israel, which is the book we’re going to discuss today.

Walter and Alan, first let me say again, as I did last time, that in the grand scheme of things, Roger and I both support the right of Israel to exist unmolested, and we think there is a lot of truth in your arguments that Israel has been under attack since day one by Arabs who resent the idea of a Jewish state in their midst. That said, we have some challenging, devil’s advocate questions for you [about your book] and the thinking that went into it, especially recent and current Middle East politics, libertarian principles, and possible solutions. So, let’s go to Roger with the first question.

 

Roger Bissell

One of my firm commitments is to the principle of restitution, of remedying rights that have been violated, if and when the individual victims or their legal heirs can be identified.

Thank you, Marco. As a libertarian, and I think I’m in good company here, one of my firm commitments is to the principle of restitution, of remedying rights that have been violated, if and when the individual victims or their legal heirs can be identified. This is a very individualistic and libertarian principle, and I think it’s part and parcel of individual rights. On the other hand, some people prefer the idea of group or collectivistic restitution or reparations, which I would say is not based on the individual, but instead on tribal or ethnic or genetic identity. I have a problem with that, and I’d like to ask you to reflect on this a bit. I think that 8 million is roughly the current population of Israel—now you contend that many of them supposedly have a DNA connection to people that lived in that area 2000 years ago. I’m wondering how that grounds any individual’s property rights, let alone of all the 8 million that live there. I don’t think that collective rights and collective restitution are part of libertarianism.

You, Alan and Walter, seem to endorse the idea of group rights as applied to Israel, and if that’s the case, I don’t know how you can justify it as a libertarian argument or [one] based on John Locke’s ideas. In fact, you even state in your book, “There is no individual Jew who can trace his ownership rights over any specific piece of land from 2000 years ago.” Now, why wouldn’t that be the end of the discussion? How can the idea of a Jewish homeland be more than just a sentimental idea and not something that’s grounded in libertarian theory? Isn’t your homeland where you live? Even though I’m of largely German ancestry, my homeland is the United States. Lucky me. So please explain the basis of your argument for [Israel as] a homeland for the Jewish people. If it’s not based on tribal or collectivist grounds, then what is the libertarian case for a homeland?

 

Walter Block

Hans Hoppe made a similar argument, and we have to distinguish…first of all, I agree with you entirely, Roger, and I think you’re putting the case very well, that reparations are the key. If my grandfather stole this Adam Smith doll, my grandfather stole it from your grandfather, and my grandfather gave it to my father who gave it to me. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was your grandfather’s, but if you can prove it was your grandfather’s, I should give it back to you. And if I keep it, well, right now I’m not a thief because you haven’t put in a claim. But when and if you put in a claim and I resist you, then, you know, we libertarians have a problem with me. So, I agree with you entirely on reparations. I go so far as to favor reparation of the black people for slavery of their great grandfathers, if and only if they can prove that their grandfather was on this plantation and there were 10 slaves and one-tenth of the plantation really should go to this black guy in Harlem … I agree with that. And I think that this is an unpopular view because a lot of people think that reparations means that all whites owe all blacks money, but we libertarians wouldn’t go along with that. We would certainly go along with it on an individual basis, and there is no statute of limitations. There’s a natural statute of limitations, because the farther back you go in history, the harder it is to prove anything. But if this Adam Smith doll was stolen two million years ago or 2,000 years ago, and you can prove it, well, then, by gum and by golly, I should give you the Adam Smith doll.

 

Roger Bissell

I’d like to see that proof! [group laughter]

 

Walter Block

There is a natural statute of limitations because it’s harder to prove, and the burden of proof is on the person who’s the plaintiff. The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s the plaintiff that has to prove something. So, we agree entirely.

Now with this collectivism business, Hans Hoppe made a similar point; and in our (Alan and my) response to him, we said that methodological individualism is fine—no problem with methodological individualism. Only individuals can act. Groups can’t act as apart from the individuals comprising it. If you take all the people out of the group, there’s no group left. There’s no such thing as a group apart from the individuals who comprise it. So, from a methodological, Austrian economic point of view, Hans and I and you, Roger, are all on the same [page]. But we have a little problem with collective denigration, therefore of collective rights or collectivism politically. There is such a thing as the kibbutz. The kibbutz is a voluntary organization comprised of people, and it’s a group, and I have no problem with saying that the kibbutz has some rights. It’s true that the rights are claimed by the individuals in the kibbutz, but still the kibbutz can act for all the individuals.

Another problem that I have with Hans Hoppe and your devil’s advocate point of view is—take the American Indians.

Another problem that I have with Hans Hoppe and your devil’s advocate point of view is—take the American Indians. The Europeans came over in [the early 1600s]. When they came over, did the Indians own any land at all? A lot of people say they owned it all, but that’s silly, because right now there are some [330] million people in the United States, and the place is empty. Okay, east of the Mississippi, there are some people. You take a plane from New York to San Francisco and you go west of the Mississippi. Apart from Las Vegas and Denver, there’s nobody there. I mean, I’m exaggerating a little bit, but the place is empty, and that’s [330] million people. Well, how many Indians were there when the Europeans came over? The best estimate is something like 3 to 5 million. Those 3 to 5 million can’t homestead [it all], which is the libertarian way of determining ownership. They can’t homestead the whole place when [330] million haven’t done that. So, they can’t own it all, but can they own anything? According to the Hans Hoppe view and the devil’s advocate view you’re now claiming, they can’t own anything. They can’t own even one square inch of anything because they didn’t own it individually. They homesteaded as a tribe. There was no individual ownership among the Indian peoples. Yes, you could own your own moccasins, I suppose, and your own bow and arrow. But when it comes to the 10 square miles of their southern place and the 10 square miles of their northern place, they didn’t own it individually, they owned it as a group. And according to this idea that only individuals can own stuff, they didn’t own one square inch of anything, which I think is equally as crazy as to say they owned it all. So, I’m a moderate here. I don’t claim they own nothing, and I don’t claim that they own everything. I claim they owned whatever they homesteaded as a group.

A whole bunch of Jews were kicked out of Egypt and Iraq and Syria and all these other countries, and nobody says squat about that.

Okay, one other point on this collective ownership. And I think Alan will have something to say about the Kohanim or the Kohens. But what I wanted to say is that in 1948, a whole bunch of Palestinian Arabs left the area. Many of them were scared of the war. Some just went on vacation for all I know. Others were cooperating with the seven invading armies that told them to leave because it’d be easy to slaughter the Jews if they weren’t there because they would get in the way, and in two weeks when they slaughtered all the Jews, they could come back. And a lot of people say, well, this is horrible. This is anti-libertarian. Let them come back—the right of return. Not only maybe on the level of individuals or a group, but they should all return. And there were about a million of them, give or take, who want the right of return, and there are many more of their heirs now. But at the same time, a whole bunch of Jews were kicked out of Egypt and Iraq and Syria and all these other countries, and nobody says squat about that.

Now, one way to do this would be in a group way. Here are a bunch of Arabs who lived in the area under contest. They could take over the property of the people who were kicked out of Egypt and Syria, et cetera. That would be a tribal way or a collectivist way of doing it. But most people who comment on this, they forget about the Jews who were kicked out, and they talk about only the right of return of the Arabs. So, I think you make a very good point about collectivism and individualism in terms of methodology and Austrian economics. But when it comes to politics, I think we have to be a little more flexible, a little bit more open, because the argument, as I say, implies that the Indians own no land because they own it collectively. So, I don’t think that as libertarians we should denigrate collectivism quite as much. I mean, collectivism is a dirty word. It’s like the F-word in parlance. If you’re a collectivist, you’re evil. No! There is such a thing as voluntary collectivism.

 

Roger Bissell

Fine. Alan?

 

Alan Futerman

Yes, well, many, many points. Now, the first one is that we do not make in the book the case that the entire land of Israel is owned by Jews because there is a genetic connection, nothing of the sort. What we do claim is that one of the reasons, or one of the main reasons, why the Jews came back to that land is because of the historical connection, a part of which can be shown in such a way that there is evidence for certain specific places which are key places in the area, such as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, that we know was built by Jews, by a specific group of Jews, the Kohanim basically, and we know that they descend from the same people that built the place. That’s where the genetic continuity appears as a proof, apart from the cultural continuity that shows that these are basically the same people that held the same beliefs, the same books, the same ideas, the same history and the same desire to get back to that land. This is a very important place in the entire situation because it’s the core of the land, Jerusalem, and more specifically the Temple Mount. That’s why we use it. But we don’t claim this as a case for all of the land.

Again, as Walter said, if there are no statutes of limitation with respect to a particular property, then why shouldn’t the Temple Mount go back to the descendants of the original builders of the place, which are the Kohanim? Why not? Because the alternative would be that the place be controlled by the Islamic Waqf as it is today. But this is just a theoretical example to show that the Jewish connection to the land goes very deep. But what is the case for most of the land? The case for most of the land is that the Jews went back to a land that was for the most part not homesteaded. And so, the historical part, the cultural part, explains why they wanted to go back to the land of Israel, but it does not explain why they are entitled to the land. They are entitled to the land that they homesteaded and the land that they gained as a result of defensive wars. That is the case.

Much of that land, was regarded as uncultivable, hence uncultivated.

Now, what was the situation of the land at the end of the 19th century? I don’t know if we discussed this, but it’s important to your point. Basically, by the end of the 19th century, let’s say, 1890, there were, about 400- to 450,000 Muslims and about 50,000 Jews, something like that. The area now has 10 million people living in Israel proper as citizens of the state of Israel. You have about 3 million Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, and you have 2 million in Gaza. And still, two thirds of the territory is nearly unhomesteaded, which is basically the Negev Desert. So, you can imagine how much homesteading could have been done 150 or 200 years ago. Almost nothing. But let me also add a few more details to this, which are basically the following: The land where the state of Israel was established was owned by Jews about 9%, the Arabs owned about 20% and the other, let’s say 70%, was owned by the government, that is the British and before them the Ottomans. It wasn’t owned by anyone. But at the same time, of the land that was owned by Arabs, and we often make this claim, which is that a part of that land, much of that land, was regarded as uncultivable, hence uncultivated. And so if you see the entire land, that is where the state of Israel was established, and Judea and Samaria at the time that were in the hands of Jordan in 1948, and the Gaza Strip that was in the hands of Egypt—if you see all of that, you’ll see that of the land that was regarded as cultivable and that was owned by Arabs, at most that was 30% of the entire land. But most of the land that was worked by Arabs was done so under a category of land that was collectively owned in many cases. There are very specific categories of land at the time. Most of them were government concessions. What we regard as private property in a Western sense was very little.

The Jews got back, they homesteaded a part of the land, and then they repelled their enemies that tried to kill them in the course of defensive wars.

We can continue with more details about this, but basically the point is, why is there a case for Israel on the classical liberal perspective or the libertarian perspective? Well, mainly because the Jews got back, they homesteaded a part of the land, and then they repelled their enemies that tried to kill them in the course of defensive wars. That is, the Jews defended themselves. And so basically that is the case. But we don’t make, as our adversaries claim, trying to distort our views, a case that every rock in the desert in the south of Israel is owned by Jews because of a genetic connection. You read our book, and we don’t say that anywhere.

 

Walter Block

It’s perfectly compatible with libertarianism that country B, the victim, be compensated for the unjust war started by country A, and that would be the Golan Heights in this case.

Let me just add one thing about, Alan mentioned it, but very briefly, about this winning a defensive war—take the Golan Heights. At one time, the Golan Heights was not part of Israel. Then there was a war started by the Arabs and won by Israel, and at the end of the war, they were occupying the Golan Heights. Well, should they leave it? If country A invades country B, and country A is in the wrong, and country B wins, and country B at the end of the war is occupying some of country A’s land, I think it’s perfectly compatible with libertarianism that country B, the victim, be compensated for the unjust war started by country A, and that would be the Golan Heights in this case.

 

Roger Bissell

Especially if the Golan Heights is a staging area for attacks on country B.

 

Alan Futerman

Absolutely. Which in fact it was.

 

Walter Block

Minor detail.

 

Roger Bissell

Minor detail. “Facts are stubborn things.” [group laughter] Marco, it’s your turn for a question.

 

Marco den Ouden

Well, thank you both for your answers to the question. Let me preface my remarks by saying that they are a critique of Israel’s internal politics, not a critique of the thesis of your book as such. In fact, some of the details that I’m about to relate occurred after the publication of your book, so you couldn’t really be held accountable for stuff that happened after you published your book. And that internal political question, broadly speaking, is: should Israel, which was founded as a secular state, remain a secular state or become a theocracy? And this question boils down to the influence of Meir Kahane on Israeli politics today. Kahane, for our viewers who are not familiar with his name or his politics, was the founder in the United States of the Jewish Defense League, which carried out over 17 bombings in five years and was outlawed as a domestic terrorist group. Kahane fled to Israel where he started the Kach Party whose aim was, according to one source, “the forced removal of the entire Palestinian population, whom Kahane referred to as ‘dogs,’ from both Israel and the occupied territories.”

The three head honchos of the JDL, (the Jewish Defense League) the terrorist organization, were wanted by the FBI for bombings and murder, and they also fled to Israel, where they were given full citizenship. They settled in one of the disputed settlements near Hebron, where they regularly carried out attacks against innocent Palestinian civilians. One of the three, Andy Green, became the chief aide to Kahane, and the two conspired to blow up the Dome of the Rock, killing and wounding many Palestinians in the process. They were actually thwarted and arrested, and the Kach Party was eventually outlawed by the Israeli government for its racism. But new groups sprang up to replace it, including one headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, a lawyer whose bread and butter was defending Jewish terrorists. He may actually have been involved in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the former prime minister of Israel.

It seems that there are very influential, ultra-nationalist, Kahanist Zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

Ben Gvir started the Kahanist Otzma Yehudit Party, and he joined forces with another Kahanist party, the Religious Zionist Party led by Bezalel Smotrich in the 2021 election. Their coalition won 14 seats, which was a fairly powerful lobby; and today, both Ben Gvir and Smotrich hold high cabinet posts in Netanyahu’s government. But even the former IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Deputy Chief of Staff, Matan Vilnai, has declared that “Anyone can see that we are in the process of becoming a sinister, Kahanist, racist, religious, radical state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” Former Prime Minister Ehud Omert has said that “The ultimate aim of this gang is purging the West Bank of its Palestinian inhabitants, cleansing the Temple Mount of its Muslim worshippers, and annexing the territories to the state of Israel.” In your book, you accuse the Palestinians of wanting to ethnically cleanse Israel of its Jewish population, but now it seems that there are very influential, ultra-nationalist, Kahanist Zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

Which brings me to my question. Netanyahu’s government today has a tentative agreement for a peace settlement in Gaza that would see the hostages released and the Hamas government removed and replaced. The Kahanist rightists, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have threatened to withdraw their support of the government if it goes ahead with this deal. They want Hamas completely obliterated. The more moderate Benny Gantz supports the proposal, and now the opposition leader Yair Lapid has said that he will support the plan if Ben-Gvir and Smotrich do not. Do you support Netanyahu and his proposal for a peace settlement with Gaza, or do you take the side of the Kahanists Smotrich and Ben-Gvir on this? And how are their positions different? Could you elaborate on, give us your thoughts on this current topic of interest?

 

Alan Futerman

Okay, let me get to this one. There are so many points. Now, at least for us, it is obvious that we won’t spend much time with Kahane in our book. Now, it implies, and this is important to say, it’s an isolated episode in Israeli politics. Our main goal is to defend Israel and Zionism on a classical liberal basis, a libertarian basis. Zionism appeared long before Kahane moved to Israel, like 50 years ago, and exists long after Kach and similar groups were forbidden by law, as you yourself recognize. Kahane was not and is not relevant to Zionism or Israel as such. Let’s say Kahane never existed, it would have been exactly the same thing. And it is not close to our philosophy, which is similar to that of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s, which we quote several times in the book.

Now, the only reason why Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are part of the government is to complete a government coalition, not because they are essential to its policies. Moreover, Smotrich is finance minister, not defense minister, and although Ben-Gvir is national security minister, he deals mainly with internal security. Now, they are outspoken, but in practice almost irrelevant. That is, in Israel, many politicians say lots of things and, as you know, the Knesset has 120 members, most of which have nothing to do with the parties of these politicians. But more importantly, what they may say, as well as what IDF officers or former politicians may say, is in a sense not indicative of anything really. It’s just an opinion, that’s what I mean. Otherwise, we should also consider the statements or claims, for example, by Mansour Abbas and his Islamist party, which had connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, and was part of the previous coalition in Israel, because Netanyahu was succeeded by Naftali Bennett, and part of the coalition in Bennett’s government was this Islamist party. This may sound crazy to anyone who don’t know Israeli politics, but it happened. And what would you claim—that Israel was going to turn into an Islamic theocracy? No. The same thing goes in this particular case. If you have these people saying X, Z, Y, wherever, it doesn’t mean that the state of Israel is going in the direction of an Al-Aqiq state or a theocratic state.

Now, if the question is about the influence of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the government, I’d say it’s completely taken out of proportion by international media, particularly, but also within Israel by the political opposition. Many of the reasons are because of what you explained, because it’s popular to attack the government. But basically, the government was formed with a coalition, and in order to complete the coalition, they made a deal with these people. But it’s not that they are the bulk of the government. Look at the war cabinet for instance. The main leaders and the people that actually make policy and decisions are Netanyahu, Gantz, who is from the opposition, and Gallant, that’s the defense minister, not Smotrich or Ben-Gvir. They talk but it’s the same thing as many other politicians. Basically, politicians talk. That doesn’t mean they are as influential as they are portrayed, or even as they think they are, basically, if one looks at the decisions that the Israeli government takes.

Jewish extremists are both marginal and marginalized by Israelis and by Israeli institutions.

In any case, if the point is that Israel also has extremists, then I think that is obvious. We don’t hide that. But the real question, though, is if the leaders of Israel want to ethnically cleanse Arabs or to commit genocide. The answer is no. You cannot say the same thing about the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, because as you can see with the case of Kahane, the Jewish extremists are both marginal and marginalized by Israelis and by Israeli institutions. As you explained, the political party, the groups, they are outlawed. But if you see the case, for example, of Sinwar or Barghouti, they are leaders of Palestinian Arab societies. And I think this is a good question to explain the difference in this respect. Walter, if you’d like to add something…

 

Walter Block

Yes, I want to jump in. First, as I complimented Roger on making a good case against us, a case that Hans Hoppe, I think, would have approved of, the same goes for Marco. Our main critics in the libertarian movement are Hoppe, DiLorenzo, and McMaken, and I think if they were watching this and listened to what Marco said, they would have applauded, which shows that Roger and Marco together are doing a good job in—I don’t know that I’d want to say devil’s advocate—but doing a good job in opposition to us. And this is, I think, very important. Because the only way you get to the truth is with a debate. And it’s too bad that our debating partners are people like Roger and Marco, whereas Hoppe, DiLorenzo, and McMaken refuse to debate us. So, in their absence, better to have Marco and Roger who might not fully agree with their devil’s advocate claims, but they make a very good case, whereas our main opponents just refuse to debate us. So, happily we have people like Marco and Roger.

I wanted to say that Hitler liked the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. I like the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Does that make me responsible for whatever Hitler did? Well, yes, if you don’t believe in logic. It’s a logical fallacy to say that since Hitler and I are buddies on the Johann Sebastian Bach issue, that we’re buddies on anything else. With regard to Rabbi Meir Kahane, he and I agree on some things, but that doesn’t mean we agree on everything, just like Hitler and I agree on some things, doesn’t mean we agree on everything. I think he [Kahane] did a good job at the beginning with the Jewish Defense League. There were a lot of hoodlums in the New York City area near 777 Eastern Parkway which was the headquarters of the Lubavitcher movement of the Jews, and they would come up to people in Hasidic garb and they would say, give us money. And they would come on the Sabbath on Friday night through Saturday. And the religious pious Jews were not allowed to carry money during that time. So, they would tell them that we can’t give you money because we’re not allowed to carry money, and the robbers would get very upset. And the Jews even went so far as to ask their rabbis, could we make an exception? Because look, you can make an exception to fight in Yom Kippur when they attack on Yom Kippur. Can we make an exception? Allow us to carry money so that we can give them money on Sabbath. A friend of mine, Do Fisher, a rabbi, said that they should have asked for a special dispensation to carry a gun instead of carrying money in self-defense. And what the Jewish Defense League did was good. It was virtuous. They surrounded the Hasidic rabbis and their families. They carried guns, and all of a sudden the robbery stopped. Not all of a sudden, it was gradually. The robberies greatly diminished. So yes, Rabbi Kahane did some good things. And as Marco eloquently mentions, he did some very bad things, and I assume all four of us here can applaud the good things just like we applaud Hitler for liking Johann Sebastian Bach. I don’t know if I want to go that far, but you get what I’m saying, that we agree with Hitler if we like Bach. So that would be my view on Kahane.

I don’t know that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are Kahanists. To the extent that they are, I agree with them partially because Kahane did some good things, and then I disagree with them partially because Kahane did some bad things. But, you know, they should not be tied to Kahane. They should be tied to whatever they say. And so, what do they say? They’re against the pause. They’re against the present deal. They’re against the release of the prisoners given that Hamas will not be obliterated. And I favor the ending of Hamas. I think that the Hamas Constitution says not only should the Jews in Israel be killed, but the Arabs in Israel should also be killed, the ones that consorted with Jews, and the Jews in the rest of the world should be killed. Even Bernie Sanders said you can’t make a deal with people like that. So, I agree with Gvir and Smotrich on some things, and I don’t agree with them on other things, and I and Alan and anyone else should be only held responsible for the things where we agree.

Look what they did on October 7th, 2023. They were engaged in genocide. They were purposefully aiming at civilians. Israel never did that.

Now, Alan mentioned genocide just in passing, and let me say that if there’s anybody who favors genocide, it is not the IDF, the Israel Defense Force, or the Israeli military in general, or Israel. It’s Hamas. Look what they did on October 7th, 2023. They were engaged in genocide. They were purposefully aiming at civilians. Israel never did that. Yes, there’s collateral damage. Whenever there’s a war, there’s got to be collateral damage. And if you say collateral damage means genocide, well, then you’re a pacifist. And I don’t think libertarianism requires pacifism. It’s compatible with it, but it doesn’t require it. So, if there’s any genocide, it’s from Hamas’s side. Look, if Israel was really in favor of genocide, there’d be no more Arabs. I mean, they have the power, not in six months or in six days, but in six hours, to kill pretty much every Palestinian if they wanted to. Instead, what they do is drop leaflets. They say, “Look, we’re going to bomb here, go away.” Does Hamas do that? Where is the last leaflet Hamas dropped and said, “Go away from here because we’re going to now attack this area”? They don’t do that. So, if there’s any genocide, and there is, it’s on Hamas’s side, not Israel’s side.

 

Alan Futerman

I’d just like to add one thing to what Walter said. I think many libertarians are unfortunately conflating two concepts. One is aggression and the other one is the use of force. Defense involves the use of force, but it does not entail aggression. And aggression entails the use of force and the intent basically to initiate the use of force in order to compel someone to do something or to destroy him. And it’s like libertarians, some libertarians, not all fortunately, but at least those who are adversaries on this issue, they simply conflate both things, aggression and the use of force. And they don’t see that self-defense involves the use of force but is the opposite of aggression.

 

Roger Bissell

Very good. Walter, you’ve partly answered my next question. I liked your idea of—where are we going to put some of the displaced Arabs? Well, put them where the Jews were displaced from in the past, like Libya, Tunisia, wherever, that the Jews were booted out of back in the 1940s. Is that right? I believe that’s when it happened.

But this next question is kind of an odd duck. We’re moving way away from harder sciences, like—well, I don’t know how hard history and politics are, but anyway, it’s more like psychology, speculative psychology. In studies of abuse and dysfunctional relationships, there’s an idea called the “hot potato.” And this is something that is a metaphor, obviously, like if somebody tosses a hot potato to you, then you want to get rid of it. You want to pass it along to somebody else because you don’t want to get burned because it hurts. So, the idea of a spiritual hot potato [refers to something that] is in a family, a family member or a community member, or an entire tribe or ethnic group that has been terribly abused and slaughtered in some cases. This trauma almost becomes [an internal] property, something that they all carry with them. A lot of times in history, we will see that groups that have been horrifically abused, whether you think of the Native Americans, the black slaves—or the Jews, probably the most spectacular case of horrible mistreatment throughout history—you could understand and expect that they would carry with them this trauma that has been inflicted on their ancestors. Like the phrase “never again,” that’s been passed down. “What does that mean, mama?” “Well, it means that our grandparents were killed or tortured, and we don’t want this to ever happen again.” Under stress, under duress, this still could happen. People are not angels. Even good people are not angels, usually. So rather than labeling the Israeli Defense Force as something like “fascist thugs,” couldn’t an argument be made that even in the worst case, the worst interpretation, that they are acting from what they carry with them, and they’re trying to not hold onto this [hot potato], and they’re trying to do whatever is necessary to make sure that this doesn’t happen anymore by wiping out the perpetrators, the people who have said they’re going to continue until they wipe out every last Jewish person on earth?

So, the issue is, put on your psychology, your humanistic hats for a few minutes and give us your thoughts. This is a cycle of abuse that goes from generation to generation, and how can this cycle be broken? Are the Israelis doing all they can to end it? Or have they thrown up their hands and said, okay, regardless of how this all shakes out, we’ve got to get rid of these people, and if there are collateral casualties, so be it. And then, also in your answer, consider what the US and other people who care about this might bring to the table. Is there enough money that we could dangle in the Middle East that would convince some of these countries like Egypt or Jordan or the North African countries and so on to take in innocent Gazans and West Bank Palestinians and other Arabs, and maybe close out this awful chapter of violence that we see just going on for what now, 70 or 80 years? So, your thoughts on this, please.

 

Alan Futerman

I think I reject your premise, which is—I don’t see that there is abuse in the sense that you are describing, nor genocide, as Walter explained, taking place in Gaza. There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that a specific group, the Jews, are doing the same thing that was done to them like 80 years ago and it’s in that cycle of never-ending violent abuse that you mentioned. I don’t see that now. Take for example the casualty figure in the Gaza Strip by Hamas. It was revised just two weeks ago, and we cannot take those numbers seriously—Walter often says [take it] with a grain of salt. Of course, there are civilian casualties, absolutely, but the people that say 20,000, 25,000 were killed—was not even one member of Hamas killed in six months? Do you think if Israel’s goal was mass murder, then the Gaza Strip would still exist at this point in six months of conflict as Walter just mentioned? If the IDF would be following even the rate of killing of Hamas that murdered 1,200 people in a day, after six months that would be 216,000 people if we follow that same rate of killing [by Hamas] which was actually done with genocidal intent.

The truth of the matter is that Israel is not only not abusing anyone, but it’s doing everything in its power to reduce civilian casualties.

The truth of the matter is that Israel is not only not abusing anyone, in the sense you’re saying, but it’s doing everything in its power to reduce civilian casualties. Now, of course, there are civilian casualties because it’s a war, and even to be discussing this is horrible, honestly. I mean, take a look at what we are doing. We are talking about something that’s horrible, instead of talking about the things that we usually love to talk about, which is philosophy, economics, thriving, human flourishing. But I mean, this is a war that was launched against Israel. Israel did not initiate this war. And there are hostages in the Gaza Strip. People often forget. I mean they have hostages there in the tunnels that they built, and they have their civilian population above those tunnels on purpose. This is the extreme perversion of Hamas, and it seems that people that oppose Israel are not taking into account that there are civilian hostages, Israelis, in Gaza and with an enemy that not only doesn’t [even] care about the death of its own civilians, but even promotes it. It’s a really difficult situation. Now, it would not be possible that they kill about 4,000 Hamas terrorists, according to the IDF, give or take, with roughly 10,000 civilian casualties as collateral damage, in the context of an area comprising 365 square kilometers with a total population of 2 million people during six months of conflict, if the IDF was looking to commit genocide. It’s simply not possible. Analyze it from whatever angle you want, and you’ll see this is untenable.

Now, if there is such a thing as the oppressive group behavior that you are mentioning, I don’t see it operating here on the side of the IDF. Quite the opposite. It is Hamas that attacks Israeli civilians while hiding among its civilians, while Israel is trying to defend its civilians while protecting the civilians of its enemy, which is also something that is unprecedented in human history. But let me change the focus and turn the question around. So, Israel is defending itself. The question should be directed to Palestinian Arabs in general and Hamas in particular. Are they doing all they can to end this? And the answer is no, because they don’t give back the hostages and they don’t drop their weapons. So why is it that constantly the West in general is placing its attention on Israel as if it would be the only one with agency in this entire thing? It doesn’t work like this. Both sides need to be looked at and analyzed carefully in order to see, again, who is aggressing, who is using force while defending itself, and not conflating the entire thing or placing moral equivalences, because the only thing that will come out of that is the victory of Hamas.

 

Walter Block

Let me add to Alan’s eloquent points. [Roger: Thank you, Alan.] Some people liken this to the Hatfields and the McCoys. This was a fight over many generations. But the Hatfields and the McCoys were roughly equal, morally. I never found any evidence that one was in the right and the other was in the wrong. This is not Hatfield versus McCoy. This is cops versus robbers or cops versus murderers. The cops don’t have a pause. The cops should not have a pause. Whether they’re private or public, that’s a different issue. But the cops should keep trying to get at the murderers and rapists. They shouldn’t make a pause. They shouldn’t make a deal with them. They should put them in jail or do whatever the law requires. So, the Hatfield-McCoy analogy, I obviously reject.

Bibi Netanyahu said something I can only offer in paraphrase. He said if Israel dropped its weapons, there’d be no more Israel and no more Jews. If Hamas dropped its weapons, there’d be peace. Golda Meir said, again a paraphrase, there’ll be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us. Right now, they hate us more than they love their children.

They embed themselves in the schoolyards, in the hospitals. They use their children as shields.

The proof is they embed themselves in the schoolyards, in the hospitals. They use their children as shields. Look, if I’m running at you, and here’s my Adam Smith [Walter’s desk bobblehead figure of Adam Smith], my child, and I’m gonna attack you and I’ve got a knife here, here’s my knife, it’s a pen, and I yell that I’m gonna kill you, Marco, and the only way Marco can stop me (he’s got a gun) is to shoot me, otherwise he’s dead, he’s dead meat. Now, if he shoots me, he’s gotta go through Adam Smith. Adam Smith is an innocent person. Should he shoot me or not? Well, obviously, he should shoot me because I’m in the process of murdering him. I’m attempting to murder him. Well, that’s exactly what’s going on there. So, this idea of a pause, you know, you’ve got to stop these people.

Roger, you asked about the money. My understanding, and I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong on this, is that when the Israelis went into Rafah, they found not only tunnels leading into Israel, but tunnels leading into Egypt. And they also found that the price of accepting a Palestinian was $5,000, 5,000 US [dollars]. Namely, the Egyptians would accept all the Palestinians that wanted to come there for $5,000 each. Well, $5,000 each is a pittance compared to the money that is floating around. I mean, the money that went for cement and metal for Gaza in 2005 when the Israelis left didn’t go for desalinization plants. It didn’t go for hospitals. It didn’t go for hotels. It went for tunnels and rocket launching pads placed in hospitals and in children’s schools.

Now, let’s get back to the psychology. I’m now putting myself in the place of a soldier in the Israeli army. Is he a happy camper? No, he’s not a happy camper. He correctly regards Hamas as responsible for the killing of 1,200 people on October 7th. He’s willing to follow orders, but every once in a while hatred overtakes him and he does something wrong, and what happens? He gets punished for that. He gets punished if he disobeys the Israeli principles, which are among the most decent in the world, as proven by the fact that the proportion of civilians and soldiers killed on the part of the IDF is the lowest of anyone, much lower than any other war, because the Israelis try to protect not only their own civilians, but the other civilians. So, when an Israeli soldier does something that is incompatible with the idea of principles, he gets punished. What happens when a Hamas fighter not disobeys Hamas principles, but obeys Hamas principles and kills a civilian? He gets a pension. And if he dies in the attempt because he’s a suicide bomber, his heirs get a pension. I mean, talk about psychology! Yes, the Israeli soldiers are human beings. It would be amazing if none of them were enraged. Yes, I’m enraged. and I’m not an IDF soldier. I’m enraged at what happened on October 7th. It was despicable, it was atrocious. But what happens to them when they go over the bounds? They get punished. Whereas what happens when the Hamas fighters, not go over the bounds, but do something despicable like a war crime, well, they get rewarded.

 

Roger Bissell

I believe we’ve exhausted our questions, and I appreciate your engaging answers, both of you, Walter Block and Alan Futerman, and Marco den Ouden, my co-host. This discussion will soon be posted to Savvy Street where it will join part one, which we did a few days ago, and there will be a transcript also that joins the transcript for part one, for those people who like to read instead of watch and listen. So, thank you both. Thank you, Marco. Great job. And in the words of our regular host, Vinay Kohatkar, I wish you and our viewers a good night and good luck.

 

Alan Futerman

Thank you so much.

 

Walter Block

It was our pleasure to be with you.