Rabin and Goldstein: One more time...

Because the comments section won't allow extended posts, I'm again forced to migrate comments from Rabin and Goldstein: Part Deux to this post.  (The original post to which I commented is Assassination of Rabin, Massacre by Goldstein, and my first post in response was here.)

I must admit to feeling a little gross debating people who defend murder and assassination, but I think it's important to engage their arguments, both to let them know that there are plenty of other Jews out there who disagree with them and to make sure that we liberal, progressive Jews get better at communicating the holes and flaws in their logic.  I believe that the vast majority of Jews ahbor and condemn the assassination of Rabin and Goldstein's murderous rampage.  And that, at least, gives me hope.

See my responses, indented below...
Anonymous said...

I said: You react here very emotionally, but without basis in fact. Michael has stated facts about what occurred, and Rabin's behavior gloating about what had occurred. Yes, Rabin was the trigger-man who fired on that ship while its white flag was raised and survivors were trying to swim (for their lives) to shore. And yes he boasted in front of foreign officials about having done so (while probably drunk).


Then you said:


"It isn't surprising to me that some people, obviously yourself included, would simply brush aside the content of my arguments with insult rather than engage them."


I don't get this. To speak about Rabin's behavior, (historically documented behavior) is insulting you?


December 25, 2009 7:56 AM

Anonymous said...

"Only unserious historians ever assert things like "The historical fact is that…" Unless you were there, you don't know with certainty what happened. "

This is an idiotic statement. The survivors of the ship DID enlist in the army, just as they had intended to. At that point in history the Irgun units were already in the process of being incoporated into the united fighting forces, aka national army, administratively and were serving under Ben Gurion's central command. Begin had expressed the Irgun's desire to be incorporated (and to submit to central command leadership) upon the British exit for a long time. The Haganah did not hesisate to accept this request and administratively the decision had already been made and was in process of being carried out. This is not proven by "me" but by historical documents.

"If you want to debate whether or not Ben Gurion was justified in believing that Begin intended to establish "an army within an army," "


He didn't believe that because he couldn't possibly have believed that. His worry was about the Irgun's popularity as a potential (future) political rival. Based upon the documented exchanges between Begin and the Haganah representatives there is no possible way to think that Ben Gurion really "believed" that was possible or even desired by the Irgun. He used this as the excuse for his murderous actions. You are not well read about this issue to know that many lies have been told about it. But Begin had an agreement with Yisrael Galili about the ship. The Haganah instructed that the ship must be brought to shore "Without delay" ! If Ben Gurion thought there was really an attempt in the works for the Irgun to "take over" the army and to stage a coup, why would the Irgun ask permission to bring the ship to Eretz Yisrael after telling Ben Gurion what exactly was on it, and why would Ben Gurion not say 'no' but instead insist that the ship must be brought immediately (even though the first ceasefire had actually just begun). It is clear that you are not well-read on this issue. Begin and the Irgun leadership was subjecting itself to "Haganah" (or former haganah, but now unified armed forces) command and asking permission and approval for their own actions.


You have just heard some general sentiments and the propaganda that floats around about it and then drawn conclusions. Let's focus on the facts of the matter. The facts don't fit with the convenient story that the altalena affair prevented a civil war. The facts show that the Altalena WAS an act of civil war by Ben Gurion, and only the staunch discipline and the refusal of Irgun adherents to engage in warfare with fellow Jews prevented an actual civil war from developing in the midst of an existential national danger and engagement with several enemy arab armies.


December 25, 2009 8:09 AM

Your attempt to switch the topic of conversation from whether or not Rabin's assassination and/or Baruch Goldstein's mass murder were justified to a debate over the events of the Altalena affair is understandable, but beside the point. These are not the questions I want to discuss, nor were they the issues about which I initially commented.

To recap, Michael made a number of highly inflammatory and, in my opinion, disturbing statements in his original post and subsequent update. I won't reprint them here, but to sum up, Michael argued that because of (a) the Left's/IDF's inaction and (b) the Oslo accords, Goldstein ultimately was not responsible for his actions – he did 'what he had to do under the circumstances.' In addition, because of Rabin's actions in 1948 during the Altalena affair and, it seems, because of his role in implementing Oslo, he got what was coming to him. I found these statements not only to be incredibly disturbing but based on weak, highly questionable logic.
Your response, Anonymous, was two-fold. One tack was to argue with me over Rabin and the Altalena affair. I'm not going to continue this line of argument, because it will do no good and because we both agreed that even if your version of events was 100% accurate (which I do not), it doesn't in any way whatsoever justify Rabin's assassination.

There is one thing I want to clear up, though. You assert that "[My] challenge to Michael's premise was not based on [arguing that no matter Rabin did in 1948 it did not justify his assassination], but instead on a denial of the facts. The facts are that Rabin did do those evil things. THAT was what I was clearing up."

Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Go back and read what I wrote. In response to his paragraph on the Altalena and Rabin, I said (a) "You really have a poor, biased grasp of Israeli history if this is what you honestly think"; and (b) "A discussion of the Altalena is way beyond the scope of what can be done here." As to (a), that's right, I think Michael has a highly biased view of history if he thinks that the upshot of the Altalena affair is that Rabin, "was a common petty murderer." It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the statement; the point is that history is supposed to avoid such value judgments and stick to the facts. I maintain that discussing his actions divorced from the military and political context in which they occurred – which is what Michael did in his post – is the essence of bad history. The same applies to your statement that "The facts are that Rabin did do those evil things." Facts don't involve opinion or value judgments; that's why they're called facts. You may believe that Rabin's actions were evil, and that is your prerogative, but that is your belief, not fact. Whether or not Rabin killed people on that day is a question of fact; whether or not his actions were evil, on the other hand, is opinion. This is why debating the Altalena affair isn't fruitful – it's too easy in the blog format to conflate or confuse facts and opinions. In any case, as I stated very clearly, doing so "is way beyond the scope of what can be done here." I stand by that. What I did ask, though, was

If Rabin truly was a "common petty murderer, by his own explicit and proud admission" as you describe, then why wasn't he ever charged for the crime? Sharon could have charged him. Bibi could have done it. Why didn't they do it? I'm curious to know your explanation for this.

No one has yet responded to this. And I don't wonder why…

Anonymous said...

"But let's cut to the chase: Even if I were to grant everything you say here (which I do not), it doesn't in any way whatsoever justify Rabin's assassination. "


This to me is a fair argument. I agree that Rabin being a murderer, even as evil as he was in doing what he did by the altalena, does not justify his assassination about 50 something years later. But that was not what I was commenting about. Your challenge to Michael's premise was not based on this, but instead on a denial of the facts. The facts are that Rabin did do those evil things. THAT was what I was clearing up. If you want to argue that even despite that, it does not justify murdering him, then go ahead, and that is a fair argument worth consideration. But don't sit here and deny the facts of what happened in order to 'defend' Rabin's image/legacy or whatever else just because you never heard of these things since it is inconvenient for the media to talk about them. What happened happened.


I also do feel that if someone wished to "justify" the assassination, it would best be done on grounds different from that which Michael chose to justify it, and which in my opinion, you rightly criticize as being not sufficient justification. But there is a whole can of worms Michael has not touched, for which I do not know if you could possibly offer a good criticism. Perhaps we'll leave that to another time.


December 25, 2009 8:18 AM

Anonymous said...

"Shall we look at the Arabs' massacre of the Jewish Hevron community of 1929 as the precedent? Should that establish a hypothetical "proportionality" of Arab pogrom/massacre carnage? If so, Goldstein's behavior was surely too polite.


No, I'm not going to look at something that happened 60 years ago as a way to justify murder today. And neither should you. "


You misinterpreted my question. You opened up a place for debate about the extent of the pogrom the Arabs intended for Hevron's Jews around the time Goldstein was axed to death inside the cave, in an attempt to determine if what he did was 'commensurable' or "proportionate" with what they were going to do to the Jews in their pogrom. To determine if it was "proportionate to the level of provocation" we would have to make estimations about the extent of violence the Arabs intended for Hevron's Jews in the pogrom that was imminent. In that case, we could only look to precedent, such as the pogrom that Arabs had done against Hevron Jews in the past.


That is not the same thing as "look[ing] at something that happened 60 years ago as a way to justify murder today."


December 25, 2009 8:23 AM

Anonymous said...

"a) Goldstein had credible information that a specific group of individuals was preparing to carry out an attack; and (b) Goldstein had reason to believe that the specific preemptive actions he planned to take would prevent this immanent attack. Neither of these things held true. "

Actually it looks like both "held true." Goldstein did receive instructions from the army heirarchy to prepare for massive casualties to Jews in the impending pogrom the Arabs were going to commit against them. That covers part (a). As to part (b), it appears that Goldstein turned out to be the only victim of the rioting Arabs, instead of the entire community, so it looks like he achieved his goal, if that's what it was.


December 25, 2009 8:26 AM

But now let's turn to Goldstein.

In the first place, Michael hasn't responded to any of my arguments. Maybe he's busy, maybe he doesn't care to bother; both are fine reasons. But as far as I'm concerned he hasn't responded because he has no response.

You, though, put two arguments on the table, one concerning proportionality and the second concerning information.

First, you say that the events of 1929 are relevant because they (could have?) helped Goldstein calculate "the extent of violence the Arabs intended for Hevron's Jews in the pogrom that was imminent." Where to even begin with this? How about here: Using your logic, Palestinians could view the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre as justification for preemptively striking Israeli civilians every time they believed IDF actions were immanent. What's the difference?

Second, you maintain that Goldstein had both "credible information that a specific group of individuals was preparing to carry out an attack" and "reason to believe that the specific preemptive actions he planned to take would prevent this immanent attack." Your evidence for this is that "Goldstein…receive[d] instructions from the army hierarchy to prepare for massive casualties to Jews in the impending pogrom the Arabs were going to commit against them" and because "Goldstein turned out to be the only victim of the rioting Arabs, instead of the entire community," clearly his actions prevented the attack.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding the distinction between states and individuals when it comes to justifying preemptive attack. States have the advantage of advanced and multi-faceted intelligence-gathering organizations; even the most insulated dictators have advisors and experts to consult; and leaders make decisions in the interests of national security, not individual security. When state decision makers, drawing on all of the available information and intelligence, conclude that preemptive attack is the only way to prevent disaster, they do so. In 1967, with reams of intelligence reports, satellite date, and multiple expert opinions, filtered through Israeli military and civilian decision-making apparatuses, government ministers took weeks to debate before preemptively attacking its neighbors. To compare this to Goldstein, who heard general, nonspecific warnings rather than specific military intelligence, then took it upon himself – without consultation, debate or advice – to spray machinegun fire into a crowd of worshipers who posed no immediate threat to anyone is so completely specious that only Baruch Goldstein's supporters could possibly fail to see this. Finally, your argument that Goldstein's being the only casualty is evidence that he knew his actions would prevent the immanent attack…are you for real? I submit that his being the only Jewish casualty is far more persuasive evidence that there was no attack in the making and that Goldstein murdered those people for no reason other than the hatred in his heard and the paranoia in his head. To repeat my questions, "Why was he the only one to see the obviousness of the impending attack? If the evidence was so clear, so overwhelming, then why did he act alone?"

Well?