Walter Block Is a Zionist Extremist, not a Libertarian

Listen to This Article

Introduction

In an episode of the Tom Woods Show published on August 30, 2024, comedian and libertarian political commentator Dave Smith debated the topic of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip with academic Walter Block, who argued in favor of the debate resolution that “the proper libertarian position is to support Israel in its war with Hamas.”

Dave Smith rightly argued that supporting Israel’s brazen war crimes in Gaza is totally incompatible with the libertarian principle of non-aggression, while Walter Block defended his view by characterizing the situation in Gaza, along with the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, in ways that bear no relationship to objective reality.

Indeed, Block’s position is irreconcilable with libertarian principles, and his arguments are absurdly self-contradictory and dependent on demonstrably false claims about the history of the conflict, as I will elucidate below.

Watch the full debate between Dave Smith and Walter Block here:

This debate follows two that I did on the Tom Woods Show with two coauthors of Block’s, Rafi Farber and Alan Futerman, respectively. In 2016, Block, Futerman, and Farber wrote a paper titled “The Legal Status of the State of Israel: A Libertarian Approach”. In 2021, Block and Futerman reiterated their arguments with the book The Classical Liberal Case for Israel.

After the publication of their paper in 2016, I debated Farber, who argued in favor of the resolution that “Israel was founded on the basis of legitimate homesteading of land and reclamation of lost Jewish property from previous generations of Jews.” I argued that Israel was rather founded through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population of Palestine, which is completely incompatible with the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

In October 2023, after Block and Futerman published an article in the Wall Street Journal defending Israel’s military operation in Gaza, I debated Futerman, who argued in favor of the resolution that “Israel is justified in doing ‘whatever it takes’ to ‘completely destroy’ Hamas in Gaza.” I argued that, no, Israel does not have a “right” much less a “moral duty” to commit war crimes in Gaza.

The debate between Dave Smith and Walter Block is important because Block has claimed to represent the “libertarian” view despite being an ardent Zionist, which raises the question of what libertarianism is and how the basic principles of this political philosophy should properly be applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

At its simplest, to be a libertarian is to believe in the principle of non-aggression. Basically, everyone has a right to do whatever they like as long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others. The non-aggression principle (NAP) applies to all human rights, including property rights, which are particularly relevant to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

While Walter Block would have people believe that libertarians should share his view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the libertarian community has roundly denounced his position as fundamentally incompatible with the non-aggression principle.

To demonstrate this, I will first examine Block’s vain attempt to reconcile libertarianism with his Zionist ideology. Then I will review the libertarian community’s response to his vocal support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Finally, I will review Block’s arguments during the recent debate to further illuminate why the position maintained by Dave Smith is the correct one.