On Carney at the WEF in Davos 

By Walter E. Block

On January 20, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a much-praised speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

He began by mentioning his “values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

I have no problem with “respect for human rights and sustainable development.” I am not sure about “solidarity.” Here is my initial comment about the latter two “values”:

“What’s so great about ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity of states?’ Weren’t the allies justified in violating these so-called rights of Nazi Germany? Wasn’t Israel justified in violating these so-called rights of Egypt in 1967? Are not defensive wars ever justified? Was Israel not justified in violating the territorial integrity of Syria and seizing the Golan Heights?”

An anonymous critic, using ChatGPT, offered several criticisms of this statement of mine. She stated:

“I detect a logical fallacy in your argument but I couldn’t remember what it was called. You often use false dichotomies, but I felt this was a different one. So I asked Chat GPT. It identified THREE logical fallacies in your argument!

Here is what Chat GPT said (this is slightly edited, so as to maintain the anonymity of my critic):

Yes — Block’s response relies on recognizable logical fallacies / argumentative tactics, even though it may sound rhetorically strong. The main ones are below.

1. Straw Man Fallacy (Primary one)

What Carney says:
He lists values like “sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

What Block responds to:
An implied claim that sovereignty and territorial integrity are absolute and never violable under any circumstances.

That stronger claim is never actually made.

? This is a classic straw man:
He attacks a simplified, exaggerated version of the position instead of the real one.

Most international law frameworks (including the UN Charter) already recognize exceptions:

Self-defense
Collective defense
(More controversially) humanitarian intervention

So pointing out exceptions does not refute the value itself.

My response. This is an erroneous criticism.

Here is what Carney actually supported: “values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

Note, that my critic mentions, only, solely, and alone, merely the last two of these five “values.” My critic thus takes out of context what Carney actually said. For the Prime Minister of Canada, all five are on an equal footing. Never in a million years would he allow that there are any exceptions, whatsoever, to the first two: human rights, sustainable development. Since he himself makes no distinction between any of these five, I am entitled to attribute to him the view that there are none. Thus, when I demonstrate, unequivocally that there are exceptions (even my critic allows this for the Nazi German regime), I have succeeded in demonstrating an error in Carney’s claim.

2. False Dichotomy (Implicit)

Block frames the issue as if there are only two options:

Either sovereignty and territorial integrity are sacred and inviolable
OR
Defensive wars and justified invasions are impossible

This is a false dilemma.

In reality:

Sovereignty is a default norm
Defensive war is an exception under strict conditions

Both can coexist without contradiction.

My response. This charge, too, is fallacious. It stems from the same error indicated above. The critic considers only the last two values, and drops the context of the first two (I looked up the third, not on ChatGPT, and still don’t know what it means). Yes, of course there are exceptions to the latter two, Carney to the contrary notwithstanding, with his general principles concerning all five.

3. Equivocation on “Violation”

Block treats all “violations of sovereignty” as morally equivalent.

But international law distinguishes between:

Aggressive conquest
Self-defense
Temporary occupation
Annexation
Preventive vs. preemptive war

For example:

Nazi Germany ? modern sovereign state acting in good faith
Egypt in 1967 ? Syria’s Golan Heights (which is far more legally contested)

By collapsing all of these into the same category (“violating territorial integrity”), he muddies the argument.

My response. I do no such thing. Yes, I readily acknowledge that the Nazis were far greater threats to humanity than were either the Egyptians or the Syrians, but this is entirely irrelevant to the point at issue: are all three (at least contestable) exceptions to Carney’s general rule. It is irrelevant that my three exceptions are not identical with each other.

4. Whataboutism (Rhetorical, not strictly logical)

Rather than engaging with Carney’s values as principles, Block shifts to:

“What about Nazi Germany?”
“What about Israel in 1967?”

This doesn’t directly address whether sovereignty is generally a good norm, only whether exceptions have existed — which no one disputes.

My response: I most certainly was “engaging with Carney’s values as principles.” All five of them, equally, not merely, the latter pair. Whether or not “sovereignty is generally a good norm” plays exactly no role in this discussion. It is entirely irrelevant.

Note, I am not saying Carney is wrong because he is a hypocrite. To do so would be to engage in the ad hominem fallacy of tu quoque. However, it is an eminently reasonable rhetorical point to claim that one’s intellectual opponent is a hypocrite; who does not live up to his own principles.

Whataboutism is a perfectly legitimate tool of criticism. It demonstrates hypocrisy. There is even a formal name for this line of reasoning: Tu quoque

Consider the following case. I claim that my principles are to support the following: truth, justice, fairness, apples and bananas. You, my critic, object on the ground that while the first three admit of no exceptions, the latter two certainly do. Basic principles ought not to admit of any exceptions. Yet, we often, eminently reasonably abjure apples and bananas, in favor of other foods, while we do not do so for truth, justice and fairness. Thus, these three ought to be considered basic principles, while the two foodstuffs ought not to be. I reiterate that of course everyone makes exceptions for the pair of fruits. I keep repeating myself on this matter. What would you say of me? I think you would properly reply that I am being unfair, obdurate, biassed. As it happens, a strong case can be made that Chat GPT is indeed not impartial; rather, it inclines in the direction of the left, which means, in today’s political economy, against Israel.

Say, what? When did Israel come into the picture? Since I am going high tech in this missive, I asked perplexity.ai the following question:

There is a joke to the effect that Jews perceive all events as pertaining to themselves. What is that joke? Here is the response:

There is not a single standard, canonical joke phrased exactly as “Jews perceive all events as pertaining to them,” but there are a few well-known Jewish jokes and quips that work on that idea of Jews seeing themselves at the center of every story or conspiracy.

Two common examples (paraphrased, not verbatim quotes from any copyrighted source):

A joke about reading antisemitic newspapers

A Jew is asked why he reads a virulently antisemitic paper instead of a Jewish one.

He answers something like: “In the Jewish paper I read that Jews are persecuted everywhere and have endless problems; in the antisemitic paper I read that we control the banks, the media, and the governments. It makes me feel much better.”

The punch line plays on the idea that even hostile fantasies about Jews are taken as evidence that everything is, somehow, about Jews.

A joke about Jewish holidays

“All Jewish holidays can be summarized this way: ‘They tried to kill us. They failed. Let’s eat.’”

This compresses very different historical events into one repeated Jewish storyline, implying that whatever happens in history, Jews experience it as a variation on the same personal plot.

There are also more general one?liners that circulate in Jewish humor and commentary, along the lines of: “The goyim are always either blaming us for everything or forgetting we exist; either way, it’s about us.” These jokes and quips all rest on the same comic premise you’re pointing at: that Jews, surrounded by real hostility and also by overblown myths about their power, end up seeing every headline, crisis, or theory as somehow being “about” them.

Now, let us consider how Canadian Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of Donald Trump is really “all about the Jews.”

First of all, with the possible exception of Javier Milei of Argentina, Donald Trump is the most fervent supporter of Israel of any foreign head of state. Certainly, with his Abraham Accords, his bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities, his move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his financial support for Israel, he has stood head and shoulders above any other leader of any country in actual deeds in behalf of the only civilized country in the Middle East.

What of Canada in general and of its present Prime Minister Mark Carney? As to the former, no one should ever forget the response of the then Canadian official whose response was “None is too many” to the query as to how many Jews he would allow into his country in the late 1930s, when they were fleeing the Hitler regime. As to the latter, Canada, under the rule of Carney, has recognized a Palestinian state.

Second, consider this statement of ChatGPT: “Egypt in 1967 ? Syria’s Golan Heights (which is far more legally contested).” Egypt was about to attack Israel; the latter engaged in a defensive war against the former. Syria had been launching rockets from its then Golan Heights. Does self-defense mean nothing for ChatGPT? If it was properly “legally contested” to invade Egypt or Syria, why should it not be the case for Nazi Germany? Sovereignty is sovereignty is sovereignty in all three cases.

Third, speaking of sovereignty, in today’s context, yes, there is the case of Greenland, of Russia and Ukraine, of China and Taiwan, of Somalia and Somililand, and several others. But it most certainly also includes Israel. A case can easily be made that the takeover of Gaza on the part of the Jewish state would be a violation of the supposedly sacrosanct concept of sovereignty. Ditto for the takeover of Syrian territory to the east of the Golan Heights. Since all issues involve the Jews this too is a quintessentially Jewish issue (?). Sovereignty schmovereignty.

Fourth, “A senior Iranian official told Reuters Iran will treat any attack ‘as an all-out war against us’ and ‘respond in the hardest way possible to settle this,’ adding that ‘everything is on high alert’ and warning: ‘If the Americans violate Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, we will respond.’”

The present Iranian regime has long been brutalizing its people. Women who do not wear headscarves are subject to severe penalties. Recently, it has murdered more than 3000 peacefully protesting Persian citizens. If the US and/or Israel were to come to the rescue of these hapless victims, that would be a clear violation of Iranian sovereignty.

Enquiring minds want to know, would Carney’s subservience to sovereignty as a basic principle of jurisprudence, lead him to oppose such an invasion of Iran in behalf of its people? If he were logically consistent, he would be compelled to take that position. After all, he supports, as a basic principle, the “territorial integrity of states.”