John Mearsheimer is a world-famous professor of political science at the University of Chicago. He is a bitter critic of Israel. He offers a strong and severe indictment of the only civilized nation in the Middle East. It is well-written. It is erudite. It uses all sorts of big words. There is only one thing wrong with his critique: It is fallacious.
He offers some quotes that are seemingly very embarrassing to the Zionist cause, from David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel, and from Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a leading Zionist theoretician and activist in the establishment of the Hebrew nation.
Let us start with the latter. Mearsheimer cites Jabotinsky as follows: “… Every native population, civilized or not, regards its land as its national home.” This, insofar as it goes, is a declarative statement. It is factual. It is correct. One would attempt to find a counterexample without success.
But now let us peruse what Mearsheimer deduces from this statement of fact. Our good professor claims that from this we can ferret out the following: Jabotinsky was “… a brilliant man who fully understood that the Palestinians or the Arabs would revolt against what the Zionists were trying to do. And he did not blame them one bit. He fully understood why they would resist the Zionist stealing their land.” Say what?
The first part of this is also unobjectionable. Jabotinsky did indeed expect violence from the “Palestinians or the Arabs.” He would have to have had the IQ of room temperature, did he not. But from whence can it be deduced that this Zionist “did not blame them one bit?” It simply does not logically follow from the fact that A expects violence from B that A does not blame B for so doing. Perhaps they should spiff up their logic courses at the University of Chicago, and compel some of their professors (hint, hint) to take a remedial course in this subject.
Mearsheimer continues: “He (Jabotinsky) understood … that the Zionists were going to steal their homes, steal their land and create an Israeli state on their territory.” Remember, for our author, this all stems from that quote of one of the heroes of Israel.
David Hume taught us until he was purple in the face that it is illicit to deduce an “ought” from an “is.” Yet that is exactly what is going on here. From the fact that these people will fight back does not at all mean that they would be justified in so doing. This only holds true if the soon-to-be Israelis were in the wrong in seizing the property then under Arab control.
How are we to make any such determination about the justice of the matter? We turn to philosopher John Locke, who demonstrated that legitimate property titles, to land or anything else for that matter, came about as a result of homesteading. But the Jews were “mixing their labor with the land” some 3000+ years ago. When, pray tell, did the Arabs arrive on the scene? The best estimate is something of the order of 300 years ago, or roughly one-tenth as long. Evidence for this claim? The Al Aqsa Mosque lies above both the First and then the Second Temple. Archaeological evidence of this sort has been dug up all over the Middle East.
The Hebrews were conquered by a stream of invaders — Romans, Ottomans — and many were forced to leave. But they never abandoned their rightfully owned property. Thus the Palestinians were trespassers, not rightful property owners of contested land. Contrary to Mearsheimer’s contention, then, the Zionists were not at all “going to steal their homes, steal their land” of the Arabs. Rather, they had intended to, and did indeed repossess, their own lost but legitimate property.
Our “expert” in Near Eastern studies attributes to Ben-Gurion the following statement: “We have stolen their country.” However, according to Nahum Goldmann’s The Jewish Paradox, Ben-Gurion actually said this: “Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. … They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Even someone of the meanest intelligence can see the gargantuan difference between what the first prime minister of Israel actually said, and what was attributed to him by this “scholar.” But, if not, for Mearsheimer’s benefit, let us clarify. Ben-Gurion was saying that, in his opinion, Arab leaders took the position that Zionists had robbed them of land. He was merely reporting on their views, not by any means agreeing with them.
ARE TRUMP AND NETANYAHU IN SYNC ON IRAN?
Mearsheimer tries to defend his indefensible interpretation. He states: “Listen very carefully to what Ben-Gurion says, and I’m going to read two quotes from Ben-Gurion. ‘Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel.’” Notice what he said? He said I would never make terms with Israel if I were an Arab leader. He then went on to say, and this is the second quote from Ben-Gurion. ‘They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?’ Here’s David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Israel, founding father of the State of Israel, saying, ‘We have stolen their country. As I said to you, common sense tells you that what Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky are saying has to be the case. How could it be otherwise, given the fact that this land was filled with Arabs or Palestinians, and they owned almost all of the land?”
It is easy to see how it could be “otherwise.” Yes, yes, there were plenty of Arabs or Palestinians who “owned” this contested land. But they possessed it unjustifiably, since these Johny-come-lateleys were perched on territory properly belonging to Jews, who were there long before them.
Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth eminent scholar, endowed chairman and professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
