Van De Haar and Besada on Hayek, Mises, Rothbard on Zionism

Someone pointed me two the following two related articles: Edwin van de Haar, “Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek: Federation as Last Resort” ¹ and Jorge Besada, “Economics Giants 1974 Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard Rejected Mainstream Zionism.” ² I provide a quick and dirty Grok analysis below.

I did look into Zionism a little bit when researching my controversial 2001 LewRockwell.com article “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal.” ³ But as a general matter, my eyes have always glazed over at people going on about “Zionism,” things such as “postmillennial pietism,” “eschatology,” and so on. My mind always preferred hard sciences, philosophy, and seems to be annoyed by all this fluffy, weird, silly religious, mystical and slippery type talk. (See my Appendix below.)

This is no doubt my personal defect; we can’t all do everything and I prefer to stick to what I know and am good at and interested in, to avoid falling prey to Rothbard’s Law: “People tend to specialize in what they’re worst at.” ⁴

In any case, the Zionist stuff is just not my area, not my interest, and certainly not my strength. This is an issue I mostly listen to others on. I don’t pipe up. I’m fine with letting others have passionate views on this and staying mostly out of it. Division of intellectual labor and all that. (I wish ignoramuses with an opinion about IP would have the same hesitation. As Rothbard said, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”) ⁵

On Israel in general—well I used to be pro-Israel because I was influenced by Rand early in my libertarian development. ⁶ Just like I was originally pro-IP because of Rand. I suppose I am still pro-Israel, more or less, partly because of my preference for the west and modernity over other cultures and traditions, and my aversion to all forms of religion, especially radical, fundamentalist, fundamentally irrational sects mired in primitivism. But because one simply cannot defend the treatment of the Palestinians and the refusal to at least give them compensation for the takings of their property over the years, I now sometimes—reluctantly—say that “My heart is with Israel, my brain is with the Palestinians.” ⁷ Although sometimes I want to just wash my hands of all of it. I have no desire to visit that part of the world, I’ll say that—not Israel and certainly not other parts of the Middle East. Nor Africa nor India. I prefer the US, the Commonwealth, Western Europe, and can barely tolerate Latin America, and I’ve gotten used to Turkey from many trips there. And to my surprise, I did enjoy visits to Japan and South Korea. But no interest in China and the rest. That’s just me. They’re lucky they got this boy out of Prairieville, Louisiana.

Speaking of Israel and Zionism etc.—coincidentally, I happened to meet up with Walter Block two weeks ago when I gave a presentation to the Loyola–New Orleans economics department. ⁸ Walter has been ostracized—as he says, “excommunicated—by many anti-war libertarian groups and former friends because of his vociferous, extreme, over the top support of Israel in recent years. As he says in a recent interview:

I’ve been excommunicated from the Mises Institute, from the Libertarian Institute, the Ron Paul Institute, the Future of Freedom Foundation, Anti-War.com, and I think one or two others. I forget. ⁹

He could include here Hoppe and the Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society, where he once spoke. ¹⁰

 Hoppe wrote, in particular:

This is a recent editorial by Block … published … by one of the most establishment papers, the WSJ, (what a surprise!) … titled “The Moral Duty to Destroy Hamas. Israel is entitled to do whatever it takes to uproot this evil, depraved culture that resides next to it,” and as the title already indicates, it is this screed of his, then, that reveals Block as an unhinged, bloodthirsty monster, rather than a libertarian committed to the non-aggression-principle as the second, complementary foundational pillar of the libertarian doctrine.

…  his call for total and unrestricted war and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians is actually the complete and uninhibited rejection and renunciation of the non-aggression principle that constitutes one of the very cornerstones of the Rothbardian system. To believe that Rothbard would have given serious consideration to his WSJ piece is simply ridiculous and only indicates that Block’s understanding of Rothbard is not nearly as good as he himself fancies it to be. The Rothbard I knew would have denounced the piece in no uncertain terms as monstrous and considered it an unforgivable aberration and disgrace. ¹¹

After dinner (Feb. 24, 2026) Walter asked me what I thought of Hoppe’s severely critical remarks, such as the “unhinged, bloodthirsty monster” line. Not sure what he wanted me to say. I speak for myself. Why do others always want me to speak for others? In any case, I said well, that seems to me like a vivid and colorful way for someone to express their disagreement with your position on this matter. I told him that I, too, found his approach bizarre: first, coming up with a “classical liberal” defense of Israel. He is an anarchist not a classical liberal, so this makes no more sense than writing “a fascist defense of the Holocaust” or “a racist defense of chattel slavery.” Second, his argument seems oddly rooted in biblical narratives and collectivist, group ownership claims, and a-historical and cherry-picking, to boot. As best I can tell, Israel’s founding was based on massive expropriation of existing Palestinian owners and they deserve significant compensation at the very least, even if we assume that by now the taking and establishment of Israel is a fait accompli and literal restitution is impossible. ¹²

In any case,

here is a brief summary and overview of Van De Haar’s and Besada’s articles on Hayek, Mises, Rothbard on Zionism. I’m certainly not an expert on these issues but this stuff is interesting.

Summary (Grok)

Detailed overview (Grok)

Overall Summary

The queried sources consist of two versions of the same article by Jorge Besada (one on Substack and a repost on Unz.com) and an academic paper by Edwin van de Haar. Besada’s piece critiques mainstream Zionism as a flawed ideology comparable to Socialism, using the perspectives of F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard to argue that it has led to increased antisemitism, cultural disruption, and geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East. It highlights their rejections of Zionist principles and proposes alternatives for peaceful coexistence. Van de Haar’s paper, conversely, explores Ludwig von Mises and Hayek’s ideas on federalism as a pragmatic “last resort” for resolving international disorder, including Hayek’s specific proposal for a federated solution in the Levant to address tensions around Israel and Palestine. Rothbard is absent from van de Haar’s work, while Mises is not covered in Besada’s. Collectively, the materials portray these Austrian economists as favoring non-coercive, liberty-oriented approaches over nationalist or imperialist frameworks, with the authors using their views to critique or contextualize Zionism and related issues. Besada adopts a strongly anti-Zionist tone, while van de Haar remains more neutral and analytical, emphasizing classical liberal principles.

Jorge Besada’s Contentions (from the Substack and Unz.com Articles)

Besada argues that Zionism, like Socialism, is built on intellectual fallacies that promote coercion, artificial cultural constructs, and separation rather than rational dialogue, ultimately exacerbating antisemitism and Middle Eastern chaos over the past 120 years (including ties to WWII and ongoing U.S.-funded conflicts). He draws on Carl Menger’s ideas of unintended societal emergence to explain Zionism’s rise and faults Zionist leaders (e.g., Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and Benzion Netanyahu) for arrogance toward non-Europeans, cultural engineering, and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism (citing ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt and historian Shlomo Sand’s comparison to Stalinism). Besada contends that ignoring Hayek and Rothbard’s critiques has prolonged global tyranny and wars, advocating for intellectual rejection of Zionist myths to foster peace.

• On Murray Rothbard’s Views: Besada portrays Rothbard (a Jewish libertarian) as rejecting mainstream Zionism for its ideological flaws, particularly in ignoring Arab inhabitants of Palestine and seeking to erase traditional Jewish (Yiddish ghetto) culture in favor of an artificial, secular Hebrew-based identity. In his post-1967 Six-Day War essay “War Guilt in the Middle East,” Rothbard criticized Zionism’s ties to Western imperialism, which fueled endless hostility and required massive U.S. military spending (e.g., $1.5 trillion annually) against Israel’s adversaries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. He highlighted Zionist coercion, quoting Jabotinsky’s calls to transform the “ugly” Jew into a “masculine” Hebrew and impose morality regardless of consent. Rothbard saw no inherent Arab-Jewish enmity, citing historical harmony in pre-19th-century Middle East under Arab civilizations (e.g., North Africa and Spain), and proposed Israel sever Western ties to become “simply Jewish citizens of the Middle East,” enabling peaceful coexistence or face overthrow by guerrilla warfare.
• On F.A. Hayek’s Views: Besada describes Hayek (1974 Nobel Laureate) as rejecting mainstream Zionism by advocating a federalized approach to ensure peaceful order among monotheistic religions in the region. In letters to Israeli leaders like Menachem Begin (1980) and Teddy Kollek (1982), and a 1985 public letter to The Times of London, Hayek proposed a “Palestine Federation” or “Levantine Federation” encompassing Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, and possibly East Jordan, with Jerusalem as a neutral “District of Columbia”-style capital administered jointly. This would limit federal powers to external affairs, common defense, and free trade/movement, guaranteeing Jews settlement rights and access while fostering economic prosperity (e.g., as a financial hub). Hayek warned that delay would force Israel into worse terms, viewing this as a visionary path to permanent peace ignored by Zionist ideologues.
• On Ludwig von Mises’s Views: Besada does not discuss Mises’s views on Zionism, Israel, Palestine, or related issues.

Besada’s Own Views: Besada is explicitly anti-Zionist, equating it to Socialism as a coercive ideology that vilifies critics, promotes separation over education on antisemitism, and creates artificial states leading to disaster (e.g., displacing Arabs and sparking conflicts). He rejects the “Jewish State” concept as arrogant and unnecessary, advocating peaceful Jewish-Arab coexistence without Western imperialism, and calls for overcoming Zionist myths intellectually to reduce tyranny, wars, and global polarization.

Edwin van de Haar’s Contentions (from the Cosmos + Taxis Paper)

Van de Haar examines Mises and Hayek’s support for federalism not as an idealistic path to global harmony (contra Kantian liberal IR theory) but as a conditional “last resort” in extreme geopolitical crises where sovereign states fail to protect liberty and order. He emphasizes their classical liberal framework: favoring free trade, limited government, free migration, and opposition to nationalism, economic planning, and international bureaucracies that threaten sovereignty. Federation is pragmatic for handling minority oppression, territorial disputes, and instability (e.g., in Europe during the 1930s-1940s), but only if it decentralizes power via subsidiarity and avoids centralization. Van de Haar contrasts their skepticism of organizations like the League of Nations with conditional endorsements of plans like Lionel Robbins’ or Clarence Streit’s, concluding that federation succeeds rarely and often requires post-conflict imposition, aligning with a preference for cooperating sovereign states in a Westphalian system.

• On Murray Rothbard’s Views: Van de Haar does not discuss Rothbard at all, focusing solely on Mises and Hayek.
• On F.A. Hayek’s Views: Van de Haar depicts Hayek as a “life-long federalist” who saw federation as a way to restrict nationalist governments and promote peace through classical liberalism, distinguishing benign patriotism from “poisonous” nationalism (a “twin brother to socialism” linked to collectivism and militarism). In the 1930s-1940s, Hayek supported Anglo-French and Eastern European federations to counter German influence and handle minorities, while post-WWII he advocated “bottom-up” structures for Germany. Specifically on the Middle East, in the 1970s-1980s, Hayek proposed a “Levantine Federation” including Israel, Palestine (West Bank/Gaza), Lebanon, Jordan, and others, with Jerusalem as a shared spiritual capital for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The federation would centralize divisive issues (defense, foreign policy) but decentralize others, ensuring free trade, movement, and collaboration to resolve Israeli-Palestinian tensions peacefully. Evidence includes letters to Begin (1978/1980) and Kollek (1982), plus the 1985 Times letter, where Hayek urged Israel to lead for favorable terms and global support.
• On Ludwig von Mises’s Views: Van de Haar presents Mises as viewing federation as a response to multinational state instability, where nations (linguistic-cultural groups) misalign with states, leading to minority oppression and conflicts (e.g., in Eastern Europe). Mises supported federation conditionally under classical liberalism—eradicating protectionism and promoting free trade/migration—but preferred unitary unions in extreme cases. He critiqued plans like Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europe for lacking emotional solidarity and Streit’s Union Now for excluding Eastern Europe. In 1941, Mises proposed the Eastern Democratic Union (EDU) as a unitary state (not federation) for the Danube basin, treating member states as provinces to prevent power imbalances and foster collective security. Post-WWII Cold War divisions led him to abandon the topic. No direct views on Zionism or Israel are discussed, though his framework implies opposition to coercive nationalism.

Van de Haar’s Own Views: Van de Haar aligns neutrally with Mises and Hayek’s classical liberal skepticism, viewing federation as an exceptional tool for crises rather than a universal ideal. He critiques optimistic liberal IR for ignoring risks of centralization and supports a Westphalian system of sovereign states cooperating via free trade, while presenting Hayek’s Levantine proposal as a pragmatic example without personal endorsement or criticism of Zionism.

Appendix: Rothbard and Gary North on “Postmillennialism”

See also:

• Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist Murray N. Rothbard
• The Politics of the Millennium By Dr. Norman Horn
• MILLENNIALISM AND THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT Gary North
• Religion, Morality, and American Politics by Richard Jensen

(Grok)

Murray Rothbard, a libertarian economist and historian, discussed eschatology and millennialism primarily in the context of their political and social implications, often critiquing how certain religious views influenced movements toward statism. He identified “postmillennial pietism” as a theological strain within Protestantism that emerged in the 19th century, emphasizing emotional revivalism, the Holy Spirit’s rule, and the belief that humans must actively establish a Kingdom of God on Earth (through moral and social reforms) before Christ’s return. This view, in Rothbard’s analysis, fueled progressive-era interventions by blending religious zeal with government power to “stamp out sin” and achieve earthly holiness, leading to coalitions between big business, intellectuals, and pietist Protestants advocating for expanded state control in areas like education, labor, and prohibition. ^{13 14 15} In his broader writings, Rothbard drew parallels between communism and religious eschatology, portraying Karl Marx’s ideology as a secularized form of postmillennialism, where humanity (led by a vanguard) establishes a utopian “Kingdom” on Earth through historical dialectics, alienation, and eventual reunion—mirroring Christian millennialist narratives of separation from God followed by redemptive victory. ¹⁶ Rothbard contrasted this with premillennialism, where believers await Christ’s direct intervention before the millennium, often leading to cultural retreat rather than active political engagement. ¹⁷

Gary North, an economist and theologian associated with Christian Reconstructionism, wrote extensively on eschatology from a postmillennial perspective, advocating for “covenantal postmillennialism.” This view sees the millennium not as a literal 1,000 years but as a progressive, extended era of kingdom advancement through covenantal obedience to biblical law, beginning definitively at the Cross, working out gradually in history via faithful Christian action (bottom-up transformation via evangelism and ethics, not top-down coercion), and culminating at Christ’s return. ^{18 19 20} North critiqued pietistic postmillennialism (a more emotion-driven, revivalist strain focused narrowly on personal evangelism and inner sanctification) for limiting social theory and cultural engagement, arguing it neglects broader biblical mandates for dominion and law-based societal transformation. ^{21 22} He tied eschatology to practical issues like common grace (God’s non-saving favor enabling cultural progress despite sin) and biblical law, asserting that postmillennial victory involves Christians inheriting earthly blessings through ethical obedience, countering amillennial or premillennial views of inevitable defeat or retreat. ^{23 24} North’s work often linked this optimism to political activism, such as the New Christian Right, urging a shift from dispensational premillennialism (which he saw as culturally passive) to postmillennialism for comprehensive victory in history. ²⁵

1. Edwin van de Haar, “Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek: Federation as Last Resort,” Cosmos + Taxis  vol. 10 nos. 11 + 12 (2022). Note the stupid/cutesy Hayekian terminology, “Cosmos” and “Taxis,” and the silly + signs. [↩]
2. Jorge Besada, “Economics Giants 1974 Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard Rejected Mainstream Zionism,” Unz Review (Feb. 19, 2026); also at Jorge Besada, “Economics Giants 1974 Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek And Murray Rothbard Rejected Mainstream Zionism,” The Civilized Ape [Substack] (Feb 19, 2026). [↩]
3. Kinsella, “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal,” LewRockwell.com (Oct. 1, 2001). [↩]
4. See Oliver Burkeman, “This column will change your life: why do we undervalue what we’re good at?“, The Guardian (Jul. 27, 2013); LPedia. [↩]
5. Murray N. Rothbard, “Anarcho-Communism,” in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays, R.A. Childs, Jr., ed., 2d. ed. (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2000), p. 202, originally published in Libertarian Forum, vol. 2, no. 1 (January 1, 1970), in The Complete Libertarian Forum, Murray N. Rothbard, ed., Volume 1: 1969–1975 (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2006).  [↩]
6. See my now-embarrassing college editorial, Israel: Victim of Bloodlust in Middle East?, LSU Daily Reveille (June 21, 1988). [↩]
7. Block on Israel, Self-Defense, Pacifism. See also A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre; Ammous vs. Block on Israel. [↩]
8. KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans. [↩]
9. See Walter Block, interviewed by Jan 2, 2026 Made in Ancapia; See also: Walter Block: “They kicked me out of Mises Institute for saying this,” Walter’s Newsletter (Substack; Feb 16, 2026); idem, “I have been fired from the Advisory Board of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,” Israpundit [you can’t make this up. —SK] (May 16, 2025). Mises Institute: Ryan McMaken, “We Have Standards,” Power & Market (05/30/2024); David Gordon and Wanjiru Njoya, “Orwellian Libertarianism: The Topsy-Turvy World of Walter Block,” Mises Wire (Nov. 30, 2024). Libertarian Institute: Joseph Solis-Mullen, “Walter Block Succumbs to the Fake China Threat,” Libertarian Institute (May 28, 2024); Patrick Macfarlane, “Hoppe Kicks Walter Block Out of Libertarianism,” Vital Dissent with Patrick MacFarlane/Libertarian Institute, Ep. 268 (Feb 1, 2024); Jeremy R. Hammond, “Walter Block Is a Zionist Extremist, Not a Libertarian,” Libertarian Institute (Sep 11, 2024). Other: Oded Jacob Kohn Faran, “Exiling Block: What the Mises Institute Split Reveals About Libertarian Fragility,” The Savvy Street (May 14, 2025). [↩]
10.  PFP162 | Walter Block, “‘Market Failure’—Fact or Fiction?” (PFS 2016). [↩]
11. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, An Open Letter to Walter E. Block. [↩]
12. On this issue, as a general matter, see Perfect Restitution is Impossible; An Unreachable Goal and Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach. [↩]
13. Murray N. Rothbard, “The Politics of the Millennium,” Liberty Magazine (1990). [↩]
14. Murray N. Rothbard, “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, IX (Winter 1989): 81-125. [↩]
15. Murray N. Rothbard, “The History of Economic Thought #1: Ideology and Theories of History,” Lecture Transcript (n.d.). [↩]
16. Murray N. Rothbard, “Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist,” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4 (1990): 123-79. [↩]
17. Murray N. Rothbard, “The Politics of the Millennium,” Liberty Magazine (1990). [↩]
18. Gary North, “Covenant Renewal: Covenantal Postmillennialism,” (2023). [↩]
19. Gary North, “Millennialism and Social Theory,” (1990). [↩]
20. Gary North, “He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology,” (1992). [↩]
21. Gary North, “Millennialism and Social Theory,” (1990). [↩]
22. Gary North, “Millennialism and Social Theory,” Chapter 10: Pietistic Postmillennialism (1990). [↩]
23. Gary North, “Eschatology and The New Christian Right,” Chalcedon Foundation (1981). [↩]
24. Gary North, “Common Grace, Eschatology, and Biblical Law,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Winter 1976-77): 13-47. [↩]
25. Gary North, “Eschatology and The New Christian Right,” Chalcedon Foundation (1981). [↩]