MENU

Who Is Responsible for the Death of Innocent Gazans? Hamas or the IDF?

By Walter Block

August 28, 2024

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

The only Jewish state on the planet is entitled to defend itself and retaliate for the barbarity it suffered on that date.

The following is a statement written to me that I shall refute, which comes from a critic of the supposed excessive Israeli reaction to the atrocity of October 7, 2023. The gist of it is that the only Jewish state on the planet is entitled to defend itself and retaliate for the barbarity it suffered on that date—but not in the event its severity has gone far beyond what would be justified in a civilized order. (Murray Rothbard is “Mr. Libertarian” and the leader of that movement. Ayn Rand is the founder of Objectivism, a philosophy which also supports private property rights and self-defense.)

Block: My “hypothetical” is the following: A (Hamas) straps his own child on this chest, and rushes at B (Israel) with an upraised knife intending to murder him. B (the IDF) shoots A to death but the bullet necessarily travels through the baby, thus killing him, too. Who is responsible for the death of this infant, A or B? My claim is that while it was B’s bullet that killed the toddler, A is solely responsible for the death of his own child.

A (Hamas) straps his own child on this chest, and rushes at B (Israel) with an upraised knife intending to murder him.

Adversary: “My view on the Gaza war is the same as my view on other wars: it is appropriate to target the aggressors (in this case Hamas) but not to kill innocent people in the process of doing so. I admit I am somewhat tempted by the argument that, if Israel must kill innocents to defend itself against Hamas, those innocents’ deaths should be attributed to Hamas rather than Israel. But I think that’s more of a Randian view than a Rothbardian one, and I am more of a Rothbardian. And that position seems to be contrary to your own writing on human shields. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to use innocent people’s lives to serve my own otherwise-legitimate ends, whether for self-defense or anything else. Also, even if we thought killing innocents in the process of self-defense could be justifiable, I would still oppose empowering the state to do so because we cannot expect the state to exercise such a power in any appropriately limited manner.

“I think your hypothetical presents a tough challenge to the Rothbardian analysis. It hardly seems right that I should be liable to your dead baby’s heirs when (1) I was minding my own business and had to act under the most exigent circumstances to defend my life, for no reason except that you attacked me, and (2) besides, the baby’s heirs are also your heirs, so your family would be profiting from your aggression, which doesn’t make sense.

“But however that may be, I don’t see Israel/Gaza as analogous. We’re not talking about Israel stopping an attack in progress but attacking Hamas (and others in the way) to prevent future attacks by Hamas. So, you don’t have the same exigency.

“Also, putting that aside, in the case of Israel, it is harder to know how much collateral damage is actually essential to self-defense. In your hypothetical, I must accept that killing the baby is absolutely essential to defend my life. In real life, it’s rarely so clear. And there is no reason to trust any government to limit its collateral damage to what the theory underlying your hypothetical would allow.”

Here is my reply to this critic of the presumed Israeli over-reaction:

First, we most certainly are “talking about Israel stopping an attack in progress.” Hamas is still lobbing missiles eastward from Gaza. Their brothers in arms, Hezbollah, just murdered some dozen Israeli civilians in the Golan Heights.

Secondly, let us posit you are correct in your contention. These terrorists are no longer killing Jews. They have stopped. But they still have hostages! In your view, Israel is not justified in kicking some serious butt in order to free those hostages?

Third, suppose both above situations have been resolved. These evil people are no longer murdering Israelis and the hostages have somehow all been released. Still there is the threat of another October 7. These “Palestinians” keep promising that very thing. Moreover, their covenant is predicated upon killing all Jews, not only those in Israel. They have not renounced their covenant. In my view, the IDF would thus still be justified in attacking its enemies. A basic premise of libertarianism is that not only is initiatory violence not justified but this applies to threats as well. Y pulls a gun on Z and says, give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you. No shot has yet been fired. According to your analysis, if Z now shoots Y, Z is unjustified. I think you are misreading libertarian theory.

Fourth, assume away all of the above. Now, Y has murdered numerous citizens of Z and has collected hostages, but ceases all such activity, releases the hostages, promises to behave in future. Your view is that if Z still attacks Y, Z is in the wrong. I think you are now taking a pacifist position. But pacifism while compatible with libertarianism, is by no means required of it. Surely, Z is justified in attacking Y solely on the basis of Y’s past misdeeds.

I think Rand and Rothbard and I are all on the same page, here.

As for collateral damage, Hamas still hides behind, uses Gazans, as shields. Only if it stopped doing that as well, would the IDF not be justified in engaging in collateral damage. But the IDF would still be justified in killing those perpetrators of Oct 7.

Let me put my main argument in other words:

Hamas is morally responsible for the killing of innocents on either side of the border.

You’re now going to “attack” me. You’re coming at me with a knife. You’ve got your two-year-old son strapped to the front of yourself in a baby-hold-all. I can’t evade you. My back is at the wall, I have a gun. The only way I can save my life is to shoot you. But if I do, I’ll necessarily kill your son, too. I decide to shoot you. Your son, your shield, also dies. Who is responsible for his death? Me? You? I say, you are solely responsible for his death. You say I am responsible for your son’s death. I think you are wrong. I think Rand and Rothbard and I are all on the same page, here. Hamas is morally responsible for the killing of innocents on either side of the border in much the same way as Adolf Hitler was responsible for the deaths of German civilians that occurred when the Allies bombed German cities as Germany posed a continuing threat.

 

Pegs:

On shields

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/25-block-response-to-jakobsson-on-human-body-shields/

Block, Walter E. 2011. “The Human Body Shield.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22: pp. 625–630; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Human shields, missiles, negative homesteading and libertarianism.” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1: pp. 9–22; file:///C:/Users/Walter/Downloads/2._Block%20(4).pdf; http://ekon.wuwr.pl/catalog/-38;

https://www.repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Content/96375/PDF/02_Block_W_E_Human_shields_missiles_negative_homesteading_and_libertarianism.pdf

 

Note: I am keeping the identity of my debating partner here anonymous. All I will say about this young man is that he is one of the upcoming leaders of the libertarian movement.

 

(Visited 188 times, 1 visits today)