Dialogue: A Modern-Day Socrates in 2023 Using Socratic Method, Meta Model, Milton Model, and Pacing and Leading to Convince on Israel’s Right to Defend Itself
Setting: A bustling coffee shop in a tech-savvy city. Socrates, reimagined as a thoughtful, casually dressed consultant in his 50s, sits across from Jamie, a young professional in their 30s, who is skeptical about international conflicts and political stances. Socrates uses a blend of techniques to guide Jamie toward supporting the idea that Israel has the perfect right to defend itself.
Socrates: Hey Jamie, it’s great to catch up like this. I’ve noticed you’ve been pretty vocal about peace and fairness on social media lately. I’m curious, what does safety mean to you in a world that often feels so chaotic? [Pacing – matching Jamie’s interest in peace and fairness]
Jamie: Honestly, safety is about everyone just getting along, you know? No one stepping on anyone else’s toes. I think conflicts, especially in places like the Middle East, just keep escalating because no one backs down.
Socrates: I hear you wanting a world where everyone can coexist without overstepping. That’s a powerful vision. Let me ask, when you say “no one backs down,” who specifically are you picturing in that conflict? [Meta Model – seeking specificity to uncover assumptions]
Jamie: Well, I guess both sides, like Israel and its neighbors. It feels like they’re always at each other’s throats, and I don’t know who’s right or wrong anymore.
Socrates: That’s fair, feeling unsure about who’s right or wrong in such a complex situation. Let’s imagine for a moment… close your eyes if you’d like, and just drift into this thought… imagine a small community, surrounded by others who sometimes threaten its very existence, sending warnings or even attacks. Can you feel that instinct, deep down, to protect your home, your family, no matter what? [Milton Model – using vague, hypnotic language to evoke emotion and instinct]
Jamie: Yeah, I can see that. I mean, if someone came after my family, I’d do whatever it took to keep them safe.
Socrates: Exactly, that natural urge to protect what’s yours. Now, tell me, if that small community—let’s say it’s Israel in this case—faces constant threats, like rockets or attacks aimed at its people, do you think it might feel that same urge to defend itself, just as you would for your family? [Pacing – mirroring Jamie’s personal connection to protection, Leading – guiding toward Israel’s perspective]
Jamie: I guess so. But isn’t it different when it’s a country with a strong military? They’ve got power, so shouldn’t they hold back more?
Socrates: An important question. Let’s dig into that idea of “holding back.” What exactly does holding back mean to you in the face of someone actively trying to harm you or your loved ones? [Meta Model – challenging vague language to clarify thinking]
Jamie: I mean, like, not hitting back harder than necessary. Just enough to stop the threat, not to destroy the other side.
Socrates: I’m with you on proportionality—stopping the threat without unnecessary harm. Now, consider this… if threats keep coming, day after day, and stopping them temporarily doesn’t end the cycle, might a community—or a nation—feel it has no choice but to take stronger measures to ensure those threats don’t return? And as you think about that, notice how that need for lasting safety feels so familiar, so human… [Milton Model – embedding a sense of relatability and inevitability]
Jamie: Hmm, I suppose if the threats don’t stop, you’d have to do something bigger to make sure it doesn’t keep happening. I just worry it turns into a never-ending fight.
Socrates: That worry about an endless cycle is real, and I feel it too. Let’s explore this together. If a nation like Israel faces ongoing attacks—documented incidents of rockets, tunnels, or hostile groups sworn to its destruction—doesn’t it seem reasonable that they’d claim a right to defend themselves, not just for one day, but to secure a future where their children aren’t living in fear? What do you think that right to defense looks like for them? [Socratic Method – posing questions to elicit deeper reasoning, Pacing – acknowledging Jamie’s concern, Leading – directing toward Israel’s need for security]
Jamie: I guess that right would mean doing whatever protects their people—like building defenses or even striking back at the sources of those attacks. But I still feel uneasy about the cost to the other side.
Socrates: That unease shows your compassion, and it’s something we can hold onto as we think this through. Let’s wonder together… if Israel’s actions, while protecting its own, sometimes cause harm to others, could it be that the root of their defense is still about survival, not aggression? And as you ponder that, let your mind soften to the possibility that a nation, just like a person, might have a perfect right to stand up against harm, to say, “We will not be erased.” How does that resonate with you now? [Milton Model – softening resistance with suggestive language, Leading – guiding toward acceptance of Israel’s right]
Jamie: It resonates more than I expected. I can see how survival could drive their actions. I’m not saying I agree with everything they do, but I get why they’d feel they have to defend themselves so strongly.
Socrates: That’s a profound shift, Jamie, seeing that drive for survival. And as you sit with that understanding, you might find yourself noticing how natural it is to support a nation’s fundamental right to protect its existence, even as we keep questioning the how and the why of their methods. Doesn’t it feel right to stand by that principle of defense, knowing it’s something we’d all want for ourselves? [Pacing – affirming Jamie’s new perspective, Leading – encouraging support for the principle]
Jamie: Yeah, I think I can support that idea—the right to defend themselves. I still want to learn more about the specifics, but I’m starting to see it from their side.
Socrates: That’s all anyone can ask, Jamie—to see, to question, and to stand for what feels true. Let’s keep exploring this together over time. How about another coffee next week to dive deeper?
Jamie: Sounds good. I’ve got a lot to think about now.
End of Dialogue
In addition:
I will present an argument in support of the proposition that "Israel has the right of self-defense against terrorists and terrorist sympathizers," using the format of evidence + warrant = claim, grounded in objective principles and reason.
Evidence: Israel has faced numerous documented attacks from terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as from individuals and groups who sympathize with or support their aims. For instance, according to reports from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israeli territory over the past two decades, targeting civilian populations. Additionally, suicide bombings, stabbings, and other violent acts have been perpetrated against Israeli citizens, often with explicit intent to destroy the state of Israel, as stated in the charters of groups like Hamas. These actions constitute direct threats to the lives and security of Israeli individuals.
Warrant: The right to self-defense is a fundamental principle rooted in the protection of individual life and liberty, which extends to a nation as a collective entity representing its citizens. Just as an individual has the right to protect themselves from physical harm, a sovereign state has the moral and legal obligation to defend its people from existential threats, whether from direct attackers (terrorists) or those who enable and support such violence (terrorist sympathizers). This principle is grounded in objective reality: the initiation of force against innocent individuals cannot be tolerated, as it violates their right to life. Israel, like any nation, must act decisively to neutralize threats through military action, intelligence operations, or other means necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens. Failing to do so would be a betrayal of the rational self-interest of its people and an abandonment of the principle of justice, which demands that aggressors face consequences for their actions.
Claim: Therefore, Israel has the right of self-defense against terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, as it is morally and rationally obligated to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens from those who initiate force and threaten their existence.
This argument aligns with the Objectivist perspective that reason and reality must guide policy, prioritizing the protection of individual rights and the fundamental principle of self-defense against aggression. Compassion or political considerations cannot override the objective necessity of safeguarding life and liberty from those who seek to destroy it.
