Douglas Murray and Dave Smith Debate Israel-Palestine Conflict and US Foreign Policy

On a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, British author Douglas Murray and American comedian Dave Smith engaged in a spirited debate about the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, US foreign policy in the Middle East, and media representation of these complex issues.

The Israel-Palestine Conflict

Murray and Smith had fundamentally different views on the current situation in Gaza and Israel's military actions:

Murray's Perspective

Murray argued that Israel has every right to go into Gaza to destroy Hamas, the terrorist group responsible for the October 7th attacks. He emphasized that Hamas deliberately uses civilian infrastructure to hide weapons and fighters, making it extremely difficult for Israel to avoid civilian casualties. Murray stated:

"There is no intention on the Israeli side to cause the death of non-combatants. Does it happen collaterally? Certainly. And that is one of the very ugly rules of war and law things that happens in war."

He placed the blame squarely on Hamas for starting the conflict and rejected the idea that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians. Murray argued that the devastation in Gaza is largely due to Hamas booby-trapping buildings, forcing Israel to use munitions that set off secondary explosions.

Smith's Perspective

Smith took a much more critical view of Israel's actions, arguing that the level of civilian suffering in Gaza is unjustifiable regardless of Hamas' tactics. He stated:

"The tragedy that's been inflicted on Gaza is orders of magnitudes greater than October 7th. There are just every day people are inundated with images of just dead women and children. This is like one of the most brutal wars and by several metrics that really you know like personally matter to me like the number of dead kids I think that's a pretty good one."

Smith pushed back on Murray's claims that Israel is not intentionally killing civilians, arguing that bombing buildings known to contain civilians is by definition intentional. He criticized what he saw as Murray's lack of empathy for Palestinian suffering.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

The conversation also touched on broader US foreign policy in the Middle East over the past few decades:

Murray's View

Murray rejected the idea that the US is the primary driver of events in the Middle East, arguing that countries like Iran and Russia have been much more significant actors in recent conflicts like the Syrian civil war. He stated:

"I think that the history of the region and many other regions around the world is that America does not have either the staying power, the capability, the intelligence, the kind of people that you would produce in order to have the kind of impact that you actually think it has."

He criticized what he saw as an American-centric view that fails to recognize the agency and motivations of other actors in the region.

Smith's View

Smith argued that US foreign policy has had an enormous impact on the Middle East, pointing to interventions in countries like Iraq and Libya. He cited former NATO commander Wesley Clark's claim that there was a plan after 9/11 to overthrow seven governments in five years. Smith stated:

"We are after all when I'm saying we I'm saying the United States of America's federal government is the largest most powerful organization in the history of the world. It is the world empire and to sit there and say Iran colonized Iraq - no George W. Bush invaded the country on a bunch of lies, a war that you supported."

He criticized what he saw as Murray's tendency to downplay negative US actions while emphasizing the misdeeds of countries like Iran.

Media Representation and Public Discourse

The debate also touched on how these issues are discussed in the media and public sphere:

Murray's Concerns

Murray expressed concern about what he sees as a tendency, particularly among younger people, to side against Israel and make excuses for Hamas' actions. He argued there has been a unique effort to misrepresent Israel's history and actions. Murray also cautioned Smith about elevating certain figures like Paul Wolfowitz when discussing US foreign policy, arguing it can feed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Smith's Response

Smith pushed back on Murray's implication that criticizing Israel or discussing the role of neoconservatives in US foreign policy is inherently anti-Semitic or conspiracy-minded. He argued this was similar to "woke leftist" tactics of shutting down debate by accusing people of bigotry. Smith maintained that it's important to be able to discuss these issues openly while still condemning actual anti-Semitism.

Conclusion

While Murray and Smith found some areas of agreement, particularly around the need to be responsible with one's platform and pushback against extremism, their debate highlighted the deep divisions that exist in how people view the Israel-Palestine conflict and broader US foreign policy. Murray emphasized Israel's right to self-defense and placed blame primarily on Hamas, while Smith focused more on Palestinian suffering and US culpability for instability in the region. Their exchange demonstrated the difficulty of finding common ground on these emotionally-charged and complex geopolitical issues.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6kirkSwTg