A Chip Off the Old Block

Walter Block’s Flawed and Malignant Support for Israeli War Crimes

A Chip Off the Old Block: Walter Block’s Flawed and Malignant Support for Israeli War Crimes

Walter Block, the well-known libertarian theorist and economist, has responded to at least two criticisms by prominent libertarians of his stance on the Israeli war on Gaza—one by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and one by Thomas DiLorenzo. In his responses to Hoppe and DiLorenzo, Block makes impetuous demands for evidence, but only because he is unfamiliar with the evidence, or else he has willfully ignored it. Block’s writing and speaking on Israel’s war on Gaza betrays ignorance of the facts and egregious failures in logical and moral reasoning. In the case of Israel, the erstwhile anarcho-capitalist abandons his anarcho-capitalist perspective and principles, contradicts himself repeatedly, and relies on propaganda to make his case.

Block has established a veritable cottage industry in “defending the undefendable.” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) I’ve read several of these installments. Taken together, they are rather repetitive, so I will limit my focus to Block’s recent response to DiLorenzo’s essay, “From Mad (Social) Scientist to Mad Zionist.”

Like Hoppe, DiLorenzo, and Block himself, I begin by acknowledging my professional and personal relationship with my interlocutor. Walter Block has been a guide in my thinking on libertarianism—in connection with reparations, social welfare, anarchism, and several other issues. He served for a while as an economic advisor to my Libertarian presidential campaign and officially endorsed my candidacy. (For reasons that will become clear, I eventually removed his endorsement from my campaign website.) I have considered Walter Block a friend. That said, Block’s writing about this issue has caused me to lose respect for his scholarly judgment and moral probity, and not because I suffer from “Israel Derangement Syndrome,” an illness he ascribes to DiLorenzo and others. Rather, my loss of respect has to do with his specious reasoning and special pleading where Israel and its egregious conduct are concerned.

Let’s consider Block’s response to DiLorenzo’s central claim:

‘[I]n the past eight months Walter Block has abandoned the principles of libertarianism with regard to war with his full-throated support of the war crimes committed by the Israeli government by intentionally targeting and killing tens of thousand (sic) of civilians, including women, children, and babies in Gaza’ (emphasis in Block).

By “the principles of libertarianism,” DiLorenzo refers to the non-aggression principle (NAP), which holds that the only justifiable use of force against persons is in self-defense and/or in defense of one’s property. The NAP excludes the initiation of force and the collective punishment of those not involved in the original aggression. For example, if someone firebombs my apartment and I know what neighborhood they live in but not their exact address, I would not be justified in firebombing their entire neighborhood in response. In fact, I would not even be justified in bombing their home. The only justifiable use of force would be to prevent them from bombing my apartment and/or to bring them, and only them, to justice. If they posed a further threat to me and/or my property, I would be justified in using force to prevent it. An ancillary clause of the NAP is non-interventionism, which Block also contravenes.

Block’s response to DiLorenzo is that he never endorsed any such war crimes or the targeting of civilians, or admitted that any targeting has happened: “Where did I ever say or write that the Israeli government intentionally targeted civilians?” But this was not DiLorenzo’s point at all. DiLorenzo’s point is that the IDF does target civilians—women and children—and that in supporting and cheerleading Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, whether based on ignorance or not, Block thereby sanctions and encourages such targeting. In supporting Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, Block endorses war crimes.

DiLorenzo has raised Block’s ire by stating:

‘He [Block] is no longer an unpaid senior fellow at the Mises Institute not because he is ‘pro-Israel,’ as some uninformed or dishonest commentators have asserted. It is because the Mises Institute cannot be associated with such a well-known, prolific, public advocate of the intentional targeting and killing of Palestinian women, children, and babies.’

Block accuses DiLorenzo of intellectual dishonesty and insists that he never wrote or said such a thing. He never advocated targeting and killing Palestinian women, children, and babies. But again, the point is not that Block has stated that he supports the targeting and killing of Palestinian women, children, and babies but rather that he is either unaware of such targeting, is in denial about it, or dismisses the reality of the same. Likewise, his support of the onslaught on Gaza amounts to such advocacy.

Block claims that no such targeting has occurred. If he could be convinced that Israel does indeed target civilians, or that it wantonly disregards the probability of civilian deaths, would Block withdraw his support for the war on Gaza? For the record, I doubt that Block would ever admit any such evidence into his awareness. Nevertheless, I present evidence that Block is either unaware of or willfully ignores. Given his susceptibility to Israeli propaganda, I assume that he simply blocks (pun intended) such evidence from his awareness.

In a report entitled, “‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza,” +972 Magazine and Local Call reveal that the IDF has employed AI systems in its bombing campaigns on Gaza, and the IDF knows that its use of AI necessarily leads to mass civilian deaths:

Compared to previous Israeli assaults on Gaza, the current war — which Israel has named “Operation Iron Swords,” and which began in the wake of the Hamas-led assault on southern Israel on October 7 — has seen the army significantly expand its bombing of targets that are not distinctly military in nature. These include private residences as well as public buildings, infrastructure, and high-rise blocks, which sources say the army defines as “power targets” (“matarot otzem”).

The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it.

Several of the sources, who spoke to +972 and Local Call on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed (emphasis mine).

If these sources are unacceptable to Walter Block, perhaps the confirmations by the Guardian and Foreign Policy magazine will be satisfactory.

Certainly, the evidence of our senses, as seen in endless photographs and videos, confirms that the IDF indiscriminately slaughters civilians. Reuters Magazine confirms that as of May 14, 2024, “Israel’s ground and air campaign in Gaza has killed more than 35,000 people, mostly civilians, and driven most of the enclave’s 2.3 million people from their homes.”

But like so many supporters of Israel’s murderous campaign, Walter Block has apparently closed his eyes to the evidence. He can almost be heard echoing Sergeant Schultz from the sitcom Hogan’s Heroes: “I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!”

+972 Magazine notes, in a subsequent report on the use of AI systems in the bombing of Gaza, the following:

The result, as the sources testified, is that thousands of Palestinians — most of them women and children or people who were not involved in the fighting — were wiped out by Israeli airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war, because of the AI program’s decisions.

“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations” (emphasis added).

So much for this claim from Block:

The Israeli government does not at all ‘intentionally target’ civilians. The very opposite is the case. Rather the IDF does more than perhaps any other military in the entire history of warfare to save children and civilians.

In fact, the original claim holds true. According to Barron’s, more children were killed in the Gaza Strip in just over four months than were killed in four years in all other conflicts around the world, combined. As Block would say, “the proof is in the pudding.” But the proof is piled high against Block’s baseless, propaganda-laden assertions. And the pudding is tens of thousands of dead civilians.

Block claims that Israel’s Operation Iron Swords is being strictly undertaken in “self-defense.” But the IDF’s indiscriminate bombing campaigns and the statements of intent by Israeli leaders bely this claim entirely. Expressed intent is a valid indicator of genocidal goals. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has referred to the Palestinians as “Amalek.” Amalek was a rival tribe that the Israelites were instructed by God (in the first book of Samuel and elsewhere) to erase entirely from the face of the Earth. Numerous Israeli officials have made similar and much worse remarks, including statements supporting forced displacement, collective punishment, and genocide. In response to South Africa’s case against Israel, the International Court of Justice has stated that it is plausible that genocide is underway. Self-defense does not include the forced displacement, collective punishment, and genocide of non-combatants.

Block complains about DiLorenzo’s argument that the war on Gaza is “none of our business”:

‘A real American libertarian would argue that Israel’s war, and Ukraine’s war with Russia, are none of our business, period.’ In my view [writes Block], it all depends upon who the ‘our’ is, in this claim. If it is the US government, he is entirely correct … But if the ‘our’ refers to scholars such as the two of us, not only is he wrong, he is wrong out of his own mouth. For the good professor, too, and quite properly so, has made the Israel–Hamas war part of his own ‘business.’ He writes about it, does he not, in the very essay I am now criticizing?

Block’s remarks here are blockheaded at best. DiLorenzo clearly means that the US should not be funding and arming Israel and that a libertarian should not support wars between foreign entities, as Block does in every article he’s written on the Israeli campaign on Gaza.

As for the US’s funding and arming of Israel, Block at first suggests that Israel’s war on Gaza is none of the US’s business. Citing DiLorenzo, he writes:

‘[Block] complain[s] … bitterly about the Biden administration’s pause in sending more bombs to Israel to be dropped on the Gazan population, calling it “treachery.” He therefore is fully in favor of using the US government’s powers of legalized theft (aka taxation) to pay for more bombs for Israel’…

First of all [writes Block], I oppose all US foreign aid to any and all countries and this certainly includes Israel.

Yet only a few paragraphs later, Block contradicts himself by arguing that since the US has promised Israel foreign aid, it should deliver on said promise:

Third, it is even more egregious to stop the foreign aid that had been promised to a recipient country such as Israel. Yes, it is true, from an anarcho-capitalist point of view that all such government contracts are invalid upon their face. However, from the classical liberal perspective from which I often write about Israel, they are valid, and the US is derelict in this regard (emphasis mine).

So, Block argues that since the US has promised to extort its taxpayers to send arms and military aid to Israel, it should follow through with said extortion and send the aid and arms. That’s the equivalent of saying that a thief who’s promised to give a third party stolen goods should follow through with his theft to make good on his promise to the intended recipient of the stolen goods. In the carve-out exception he makes for Israel, it is telling that Block changes his stripes from anarcho-capitalism, under which taxation is theft, to classical liberalism, under which it is not considered theft. Why, when it comes to Israel, does Walter Block change from an anarcho-capitalist to a classical liberal? This shapeshifting is a convenient excuse for making an exception for Israel, the one issue, Block writes me, on which he and I disagree: “Michael, We’ll stay friends who disagree on this one issue, and probably, ONLY on this one issue” (email, June 28, 2024).

In a previous point, Block argues that since DiLorenzo has only mentioned cutting aid and arms to Israel that he thereby signals his approval of other foreign aid, including aid to Israel’s enemies:

Secondly, it is one thing to oppose foreign aid. It is quite another to stop it to Israel alone, while keeping the spigot open to the enemies of this nation. DiLorenzo opposes, only, my rejection [(sic) he means approval] of government transfers of funds from the US to Israel. He says nothing, not a word, about the US continuing to finance the enemies of this country. Why not take the even handed (sic) libertarian approach which would reject all such payments?

The issue at hand is arming and funding Israel, the nation currently conducting atrocities with US aid and arms. Just because, in this context, DiLorenzo doesn’t mention cutting all foreign aid does not mean that he supports it. Block is either being deliberately obtuse or else he really is unable to grasp the significance of context to DiLorenzo’s argument. Aid to Israel is the topic. Failure to mention other foreign aid does not mean that DiLorenzo approves of it. Meanwhile, Block accuses DiLorenzo of holding a double standard, which he does not, while holding one himself. He has previously stated that he opposes all foreign aid, yet he does not reject foreign aid where Israel is concerned. Hello?

Block then argues that since Israel is a client state of the US, the US is obliged to fund and arm it, especially since the US has reneged on similar supposed obligations in the past:

Fourth, it is even a greater denigration of obligation to cut off supply in the hour of need of a client state of the US. That country [the US] has a long history of cutting and running from allies when the going gets tough and they are heavily dependent. For example, Viet Nam, Afghanistan. And, now, once again, Israel.

Is Block really marshalling the cases of Vietnam and Afghanistan to justify the continued funding and arming of Israel? Because the US stopped funding these two wars, it is now thereby obliged to continue funding Israel’s war on Gaza? This is like saying that since a criminal has stopped short in executing his previous crimes, he should follow through with the current crimes he’s undertaking to repair his reputation as a criminal.

Next, Block suggests that the Biden administration’s refusal (albeit temporarily) to send bombs to Israel defeats the administration’s stated purpose for the refusal—to save Gazan lives. This is the case, Block argues, because the bombs that were withheld are precision bombs and would kill less civilians. Here, I merely point to the evidence cited above, which makes clear that the IDF is not concerned with sparing the lives of non-combatants, regardless of the types of bombs being guided by AI systems.

Then, our anarcho-capitalist-turned-classical-liberal-in-the-case-of-Israel-only makes a stunning reversal. Withholding said aid and arms to Israel is beneficial after all:

However, I must concede, there is indeed one benefit that flows from this backstabbing cessation of armaments: the US will further solidify its reputation for international unreliability. This is all to the good since on net balance and here I expect my opponent will agree with me, the interference of the US in world affairs has been a detriment to peace and prosperity, and thus its limitation will be a positive (emphasis mine).

Let’s get this straight. Withholding aid and arms to Israel is bad because of the reasons Block has just given: 1) it would harm Israel; 2) it represents a double standard (because DiLorenzo and, I suppose, other commentators, didn’t mention cutting all foreign aid); 3) the US promised the aid and arms; 4) Israel is a US client state, and the US has a bad reputation for reneging on its promises with respect to its client states, reputational damage that will only be exacerbated by refusing Israel aid and arms; and 5) cutting said aid and arms will end up endangering more Gazan lives.

But, but, but … withholding of said aid and arms is nevertheless beneficial—because it will solidify the reputation of the US as an unreliable international partner. Here, Block transparently contradicts point number 4.

Then, Block stunningly admits: “the interference of the US in world affairs has been a detriment to peace and prosperity, and thus its limitation will be positive.”

The “reasoning” involved in this line of argumentation is so convoluted that it’s a wonder that Block himself was able to follow it. Most damaging to his argument, Block completely undercuts his claim for funding and arming Israel: “the interference of the US in world affairs has been a detriment to peace and prosperity.” If the interference of the US in world affairs has been a detriment to peace and prosperity, why then should the US interfere in the case of Israel’s war on Gaza? Block added the phrase, “on net balance,” because, otherwise, the self-contradiction would be too obvious to obscure.

Clearly, the demolition of property worth billions of dollars, the deaths of over 35,000 people, the displacement of 2.3 million people, and the hundreds of thousands facing starvation proves that US interference in the case of Israel’s war on Gaza is no exception to the rule at all. Professor Block has contradicted himself repeatedly to make a special case for Israel, and yet the case has not been made. If anything, he’s just told us why the US should not fund and arm Israel. I agree.

Note: Special thanks to Lori R. Price for editorial assistance on this essay.