Can a libertarian or anarchist support the state of Israel? In this debate, Austrian economist Walter Block argues the affirmative and makes the case for why Israel is a force for liberty, while Saifedean argues political Zionism is the socialist central planning of land ownership, and is not possible without the violation of the property of Palestinians.
PalestineRemembered.com
Israeli soldiers recount Tantoura massacre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ1TAOibLss
Israeli settler stealing Palestinian home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8
🔗👇🏼 Sponsors
CrowdHealth – get the tools you need to affordably break free from the insurance system – https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/
Coinbits – get better at money with bitcoin – https://coinbits.app/
CoinKite – Bitcoin Security and Fun Devices – https://coinkite.shop/bitcoinstandard
Bitwage – get paid in Bitcoin regardless who you work for – https://bit.ly/3FWDYtA
———————————————————————–
Saifedean’s first book, The Bitcoin Standard:
http://saifedean.com/thebitcoinstandard
Saifedean’s second book, The Fiat Standard:
http://saifedean.com/thefiatstandard
Enjoyed this episode? You can take part in podcast seminars, access Saifedean’s courses and read chapters of his forthcoming books by becoming a Saifedean.com member. Find out more here:
https://saifedean.com/membership/
source
25:29 While it is sickening that Hamas uses schools and hospitals as places to store weapons and from which to launch attacks, it makes sense tactically, by Block's own admission (22:25 – Israel completely outclasses and overpowers their neighbors militarily, thanks in large part to the United States.) Asking them to fight "fairly" by Israel's standards is like telling a 40 lb girl fighting a 250 lb adult man that she can only use kicks and punches above the belt to defend herself (or even to attack with, if you want to say she is the aggressor.) Block's arguments are disconnected and inconsistent.
Israel has offered the Palestinians every reasonable opportunity to make peace, but the Palestinians have rejected every such offer. The Palestinians could have had a state in 1938, Israelis would have had a sliver along the coast and the Palestinians could have had 80% of what is now Israel. They said no, because the Palestinians wanted there to be no Jewish state more than they wanted there own state. They could of had a state in 1948 or more correctly they had a state in 1948. The surrounding Arab states rejected the UN resolution and the Palestinians with the other Arab states invaded Israel. Then came UN vote resolution 242 1967 UN vote resolution 242 called for secure, recognized boundaries and withdrawal from some, not all, territories. Israel excepted UN res 242.all the other Arab states and the Palestinians got together at Khartoum and issues its 3 famous NO'S: No recognition, No peace, No negotiation. They could have had a state in 2000, 2001. They said No to an incredibly generous offer displayed by the maps put forward at Camp David and Taba. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more generous proposal by offering the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank but Mahmoud Abbas did not respond. The Israeli government has offered to sit down and negotiate a two-state solution with no pre-conditions and the Palestinians refuse to come to the negotiating table.
When defending the undefendable goes wrong
Saifadine won the debate, but Walter is right!
I completely agree with the one of the last speaker, Walter Block was very disapointing when it comes to practical cases of defending libertarian ideas.
His example about the martians attack imposing a choice to defend his point was totally offchart, it's just a made up context to try to justificate cowardness and malfeasance.
Let me try to demolish his point :
If the martians ask you to kill someone, there are 2 cases : First they are not that strong and just using you as a puppet to kill other humans, once you kill one what stops you to kill 10, 100 or 1 million ? You're just playing someone else's game and when you make a pact with the devil you will only make more. The only thing you accomplished is becoming the humanity first ennemy while the martians didn't even have to dirt their hands.
We saw that in history already, when invaders use locals to attack the other locals like when the Spanish invaded what is now mexico, locals helped the Spanish thinking the red hair guy was their mythological god and they ended up with armies of Indigenuous fighting alongside the Spanish army against their own poeple.
The second possibility : they really are that strong and not bluffing and they are just toying with humanity. Do you really believe killing an other human will help ? If that type of Martians exist and they only need a button to explode evrything.
While you become their bitch and you think you've saved anyone, they can kill all humanity even if you obey. You could even desobey and in the end they can always decide to not do anything anyway !! It would be a test, a bad mood or bad whatever you want who cares nobody predicts the futur that's why values are above everything. That's why you never betray humanity, you never know what can happen.
Mister Walter Block, you just revealed your moral and proved that ppl can't trust you. Someday someone might need your integrity and you'll betray him thinking you're doing more good than bad, the same who betrayed ppl under communism thinking they were only doing their job.
History has always shawn sacrificing the way over the end has produced the worse kind of horror we have seen and you just agreed with it.
I am with Walter Block here
And why is this on a Bitcoin entitled podcast?
Walter 100%. It’s a shame Saif is a raging antisemite who clearly wants to see the destruction of Israel and Jews.
Palestine was not empty before the jews came! such a lie. What were the crusades over? Were the muslims and the christians fighting over nothing from the 11th to 13th century
Saifedean crushed it here
As a noob at this subject, let’s assume Israel actually did steal the land, which of course Israel will deny, what happens next? Just more of the same back and forth fighting for a few more decades until all the people that are connected to the 1940s are all long gone? Then the anger cools off decade after decade?
Let’s assume Israel admits they stole the land. What now? Do the supporters of Palestine expect the people of Israel to give it back? That’s never going to happen.
This is a sucky situation for supporters of Palestine. IMO, their best path forward is to take the land back by force (which is no good now IMO because it has been 90 years and it’s not the same people involved anymore). Or do like Walter Block says which is to recognize the injustice and build wealth and improve the status of the Palestinians.
I agree that ethical property rights is homesteading by being the first to mix your labor with the land. But ultimately, the only property that is yours is what you can defend.
Damn, what a high level debate. ❤
Interested to hear Walter defend the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
give it back to the turks! they managed it well for 1000 years
Here is footage in support of what the Professor stated – they were ordered to leave by the Jordanian military. (not sure why you say it has been 'debunked' – have you got evidence?). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxfJxuOWAz0&t=1s
Way to go Saifedean !!
Re Sheikh Jarrah (36.00) The Palestinians were never the owners – they were tenants who refused to pay rent – it was a civil dispute that was taken to court by the Jewish landlords and the court evicted the Palestinian tenants. Hopefully others have learnt to do their own fact checking. DYOR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIXiJV7UQo8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltfafnYAgKE
Did I hear you correctly that you insinuated that Jewishness is just a belief system? You deny the fact that Jewishness is an ethnicity? The sad thing is very few of your followers will do any further research/fact checking – including Foster Gamble…….
I probably would have been very nationalistic and agreed with political zionism in my home country of Israel if throughout the last 2000 years the majority of the people on the land were Jews, the fact that this was not the case means I can not claim the whole land or justify the zionism that manifested, although there are different paths to zionism that maybe I could still agree with.
I just changed my view on this. Using the libertarian lens, my previous 'neutral' position makes zero sense now.
Walter's argument is very weak, because it's not rooted in any serious ethics or deeper philosophy. It's merely pragmatic. He's basically saying, Israel made the place better, and have better weapons, so suck it up and go along with your new masters, for your own good. That's not an ethical position. Imagine if we said that to Jews in any other country, or to indigenous minorities. Here are some perks. Behave, or else.
I agree that the Palestinians should not be sending missiles in, and I'm no fan of Hamas because their tactics are vile. But Israel acquired those lands through state sanctioned violence initially, not through voluntary transactions, and there is loads of evidence that they evicted millions from their lands.
That is fundamentally socialism and antithetical to any libertarian ideals. When an authoritarian system is installed on your land, the only response at your disposal is street violence. Regardless of how we feel about the martyr culture, or the muslim religion, it is clear that Israel dominates through state funded force. A libertarian cannot, in good conscience, support this Zionism. It should also be noted that both Muslims and Christians live in the West Bank and are oppressed under Israeli force to this day. I've seen it with my own eyes during my time there. This is a 2-tier authoritarian society, not a free libertarian state.
I'm ignorant when it comes to politics, what did Saifedean mean by privatization of Israel?