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 100 Contributor
850 Posts
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 3:22 PM

Perhaps the biggest lie of all:

 

The UN agreement had provided (a) that Jerusalem be internationalized under UN rule, and (b) that there be an economic union between the new Jewish and Arab Palestine states. These were the basic conditions under which the UN approved partition. Both were promptly and brusquely disregarded by Israel – thus launching an escalating series of aggressions against the Arabs of the Middle East.

While the British were still in Palestine, the Zionist paramilitary forces began to crush the Palestinian Arab armed forces in a series of civil war clashes. But, more fatefully, on April 9, 1948, the fanatical Zionist-Revisionist terrorists grouped in the organization Irgun Zvai Leumi massacred a hundred women and children in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. By the advent of Israel’s independence on May 15 the Palestinian Arabs, demoralized, were fleeing in panic from their homes and from the threat of massacre. The neighboring Arab states then sent in their troops.

 

Even if we ignore the fact that there is almost no evidence for the "Deir Yassin massacre" and there is actually evidence to the contrary, we are still left with a pure distortion of history. Arabs were fighting peaceful Jews for decades. The Palestinian riots in the 20s, the 1929 Palestinian riots, the Jaffa riots, the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, and finally the greatest pogroms in 1947. Throughout these 3 decades Jews were almost entirely on the defensive side. How can Rothbard ignore all this and claim that it were the Jews who "launched an escalating series of aggressions"? Rothard or not, that's completely nuts.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
985 Posts
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 3:27 PM

Rothbard got Finnish Winter War wrong in his For a New Liberty. He claimed that Soviet Union wanted only Karelian Isthmus from Finland, and only because it was populated by "ethnic russians". Well, it was populated fully by Finns and Soviet Union had a deal with Germany that Soviets can take the whole Finland. I'm hoping it was a mistake, but Rothbard tried to use this as an example of how Soviet Union and Stalin just wanted peace...

Nice mischaracterization of his case that you failed to quote. Not that I know you're wrong, but I know that almost everyone I've encountered (including the OP) don't quote Rothbard when they attack him precisely because they know they're lying.

I will assume you're lying too, until and unless you provide specific quotes, in context.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
432 Posts
Points 6,830

Eugene, Rothbard defines "Zionism" as that faction within Territorialism that specifically sought to have the already occupied land of Palestine. That should not be conflated with "modern and independent Jews" (who are Individuals); it is a State (with some sprinklings of Jewish identity) imposing itself on people.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 4:38 PM

Provide some proof that the Deir Yassin massacre did not exist. 

Also, that there was Arab on Jew violence in previous decades in NO WAY negates the validity of the statement "launched an escalating series of aggressions".

Some thing's happened, then more things happened. That the happenings were of Arab on Jew violence and Jew on Arab violence does not justify or rationalize anything. This isn't a tally board. You sound like you're claiming that the Deir Yassin Massacre did not exist BECAUSE there had been Arab on Jew aggression previously, which is absurd.

Land & Liberty

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

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 4:47 PM

You are using a big font, but you don't offer much in the way of content. I don't think dropping names of riots doesn't really do anything to sway anyone since I'm sure most of us don't have a clue what they were or much about the context. If you're going to be persuasive I suggest you attempt a connected elaboration with background of events and what not, not just drop tiny bits of information in there. Mind you I don't really know what a riot 15 years earlier has to do with war guilt in the Middle East in the period Rothbard talks about.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845

Well, to drag the discussion back to reality, remember that each and every crime is an individual historical event that occurs in a specific time and place. One of the many problems with Zionism and the State of Israel is that not only do they employ criminal means (like any State) to pursue their agenda (yes, Arab states are criminal in exactly the same way) is that they are granted some kind of "legitimacy" or "religious cover" for their behavior. For example, in the United States, the Dispensationalists (a considerable chunk of US Protestants are Dispensationalist) see 1948 in Bilical-religious terms; they believe that God Himself is moving world events in such a way as to revive the ancient Israelites ("God's people") and so on.

Of course, there is no connection between the ancient Judeans and modern Israelis, it's all propaganda and nonsense. The so-called lost tribes of Israel may be a complete fabrication. Most of the Jews in Palestine were dispersed 2,000 years ago and dissolved into the surrounding populations. Those enclaves that managed to maintain a long-term Jewish identity (in the ghettos of Europe, for example) were inter-bred and have no verifiable ancestral claim to Judea. And even if they did, unless they happened to ahve a 2,000 year old deed saying "such-and-such square acres located at such-and-such location in the land of Palestine belong to Moshe Berkowitz", there still is no lawful way for the land to be restored to its rightful owners because they've all been dead for millenia.

Nevertheless, magical thinking is never impeded by reality and the Dispensationalists form a hardcore network of pro-Israel sentiment within the US based on this magical line of thinking about God reviving the ancient Israelites in preparation for the return of Christ.

Prior to the rise of Zionism, Jews did live in Palestine and they generally peacefully co-existed with their Islamic and Christian neighbors. Zionism is a movement with a sinister agenda; those who are actively involved in Zionism are probably almost all dupes. I don't believe that the true purpose of Zionism is to establish an Israeli state any more than the true purpose of the New World Order is to establish a World Government. The purpose is to keep us busy fighting with each other so those who dwell On High can remain in power. While we're arguing about whether "Jews" or "Arabs" are worse, those who are responsible for these conflicts in the first place are maintaining and extending their hold on power over us and the rest of the world.

Think for yourself because those who offer to do your thinking for you really just want to use you as a parrot to spread their propaganda.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
470 Posts
Points 7,025
Vitor replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 5:00 PM

Rothbard was a great thinker, but would trap himself into chep sensationalist revisionism from time to time. Praising Che Guerava (a real life O'Brien from 1984) and the Soviet Union, bashing Adam Smith quite harshly. 

And defending the Soviet Union actions during the Winter War as cited by Chyd3nius...that's quite bad.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 5:07 PM

Though it's not really important if this massacre took place. In fact it does not even matter if Arabs were driven out. As Rothbard points out fact is once they were out, Israelis would not let them back in. After that it doesn't really matter even if they only left to go for a picnic in Jordan, it's stil the same thing — usurpation of property.

At the end of the day Rothbard was perfectly capable of being mistaken on something (Cydinus referrences one article where he makes a few). But being wrong on one small aspect of the story doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong in his overarching argument and certainly does not show he was "nuts" or was bent on distorting history as opposed to having made an honest mistake.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 5:20 PM

Praising Che Guerava (a real life O'Brien from 1984) and the Soviet Union


Can you cite something where he praises Soviet Union?

 

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

TY Groucho for the compliments.

I stand by what I wrote there, which refers not just to Dir Yassin, which he got totally wrong [did he ever bother to think maybe the Arab sources on the subject are not the most reliable?], but to many other things he wrote in that article. I did not pursue the subject, since I sensed nobody was listening with objective ears.

It is indeed an emotional topic for me, but do not make the mistake of thinking that I am therefore irrational. Passion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. 

Jargon,

I give credit where it is due, and you deserve credit for taking a first step and admitting there are "exaggerations".

My humble blog

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
467 Posts
Points 7,590

I give credit where it is due, and you deserve credit for taking a first step and admitting there are "exaggerations".

lol, in light of that comment I just want to state I did observe my previous post went unrebutted to, "let's move on."  After all the accusations Rothbard was lying because nothing was promised to Arabs, it wasn't a promise by the British government, it was just a promise to a dictator, etc. rhetoric, silence to evidence is acquiescence.

I'll consider giving credit when it is due...

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
850 Posts
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 11:53 PM

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

This page describes the events that Rothbard defines as solely Zionists series of aggressions, and ignoring the economic relations with the Arabs as defined by the U.N (whatever that means).

 

 

In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community. Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The impasse persisted as no force intervened to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence[6][7][8][9]

According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.[10] Morris also says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead.[11] According to Ilan Pappe, by January 1948, 400 Jewish settlers had been killed while attempting to maintain contact with isolated Zionist settlements established "in the heart of Palestinian [Arab] areas", while 1500 Arabs had been killed in the "random bombardments and shellings of their villages and neighbourhoods".[12] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March, there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded.[1] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.

Please note, the historians quoted in Wikipedia are what revisionist anti-Zionist historians (you can read more about Morris and Pape), but even according to them, there was aggression from both sides.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
467 Posts
Points 7,590

Is this true or false?

Just because all sides share in the ultimate State-guilt, does not mean that all sides are equally guilty.  On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression

If it is true please explain which side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression.

If it is false please explain why squatters, thieves, or other forms of trespass against property ownership should not be deemed aggression.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 3 of 3 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS