Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Rothard is VERY wrong when he discusses Israel

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 42 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
850 Posts
Points 27,940
Eugene posted on Fri, Feb 10 2012 2:12 AM

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

I was completely astounded by this article. It distorts the history to an almost impossible extent, its full of lies and poison. Murray Rothbard is my favorite intellectual, but this piece of crap propaganda is simply inexcusible.

  • | Post Points: 80

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,051 Posts
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 2:22 AM

Y'know, like they say, you "can't have your cake and eat it too" or whatever that means.

 

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Eugene, details please.

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
467 Posts
Points 7,590

I was completely astounded by this article. It distorts the history to an almost impossible extent, its full of lies and poison. Murray Rothbard is my favorite intellectual, but this piece of crap propaganda is simply inexcusible.

^ that is what is referred to as intellectual dishonesty ^

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 3:27 AM

So you made a topic-starting post in which we find out that  1.) you were astounded and  2.) that Rothbard is you favorite intellectual.

Unless you think your state of emotion and the matter of who is your favorite intellectual merit a topic all to itself you are consciously spamming.

If you're not saying something that is self-evident try to elaborate or else shut up, as bare assertions on controversial questions have no value for readers.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
850 Posts
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 4:57 AM

I just thought it is obvious to anyone reading this article that it is completed silent about all the Arab aggressions, including all the massacres and power grabs. The article only talks about Israeli aggressions. It is clearly one sided. The article doesn't mention the 1929 Palestinian riots, or the Hebron massacre, the Arab revolt of the thirties including its massive killings of innocents, and most imporantly the Arab war of aggression of 1948.

I understand Rothbard's anti-statism and I can understand the harsh language used against states, but that must include all states, Arab states as well. 

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775

Eugene,

I'm with you here, and expect some irrational responses from some guys.

In another thread, I pointed out how Rothbard got Dir Yassin all wrong, with Arab writers admitting in Arab newspapers that it was a hoax.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 11:25 AM

In another thread, I pointed out how Rothbard got Dir Yassin all wrong, with Arab writers admitting in Arab newspapers that it was a hoax.


Do you maybe have a link to the thread?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 1:21 PM

Read it. Didn't see any lies, poison, or distortion. Perhaps it's challenging to your values?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775

Marko,

Sorry, no.

But no great investigative reporting was needed, if I recall correctly. It's all from wikipedia on dir yassin. Look for a jordanian newspaper article they quote, and an interview with an arab villager who was actually there.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 2:02 PM

Smiling Dave:

Marko,

Sorry, no.

But no great investigative reporting was needed, if I recall correctly. It's all from wikipedia on dir yassin. Look for a jordanian newspaper article they quote, and an interview with an arab villager who was actually there.

Nowhere did it say in the Wiki that the event was a hoax. Hoax =/= exaggeration. Did you read the article? Eyewitnesses reported rape and slaughter of unarmed Arabs.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
985 Posts
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 4:53 PM

The plot thickens...

Anyways, did anyone quote any specific distortions or lies, or is the OP just trolling?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,260 Posts
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator
Suggested by MaikU

Eugene, substantiate your accusation of lying, or edit it out of your post.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,260 Posts
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Also, choose a different title.  You can't call Mises or Rothbard "COMPLETELY nuts" here.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845
Suggested by No2statism

that must include all states, Arab states as well.

True, but Rothbard's focus on Israel's aggressions is motivated by the same reasoning as Rockwell's focus on American aggression - the public discussion hears plenty about all the real (and imagined) evil-doings of the Philistines but it's nothing but crickets when it comes to American (or Israeli) crimes. There is no need to document the wrong-doings of the Muslims, they are already amply documented by a veritable army of Muslim-crime chroniclers. What is needed is some counterpoint to provide the other side of the story.

The point is not that the Israeli or American governments are especially evil but, rather, that they are very normal - as far as governments go. They beat, torture, extort, murder, steal, instigate and wage wars just like every other tinpot dictatorship in the world. The differences are two-fold. First, the American and Israeli governments are unusually prolific and second they are unusually adept at whitewashing, propaganda and double-speak. So, the difference between the US/Israel and the Arab governments is just a matter of degree. US/Israel commit more murders, wage more war, steal more property and extort larger populations than their counterparts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Beyond that, there is little, if any, difference between them as far as any moral consideration goes.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 3 (43 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS