• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 8 oktober 2016

National Endowment for Democracy Demands Overthrow of President Vladimir Putin

Key Neocon Calls on US to Oust Putin

 

Exclusive: A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses $100 million in U.S. taxpayers’ money each year, has called on America to “summon the will” to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.


The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to “summon the will” to engineer the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.
Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn’t cite any evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses a full column in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression, calling her death “a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans are looking at for the first time.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
Gershman wraps up his article by writing: “Politkovskaya saw the danger [of Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this challenge.”
That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia’s clearly popular president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks to create the political circumstances for “regime change” even when that means removing leaders who are elected by a country’s citizenry.
And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA’s role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.
NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED’s money circulates through U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.
That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers’ money to activists, journalists and NGOs both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments in Washington’s disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, “build democratic institutions,” even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.
NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.
Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as “the biggest prize” in a Sept. 26, 2013 column also published in The Washington Post.
In that column, Gershman wrote that after the West claimed Ukraine, “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even bigger prize, a “regime change” in Moscow.
Less than five months after Gershman’s column, pro-Western political activists and neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed “legitimate.”
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that the West’s governments and media decried as a Russian “invasion” and “annexation.”
The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.
The ATO, spearheaded by neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion and other extremists, killed thousands of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the rebels, a move denounced by the West as “aggression.”
Blaming Putin
In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America’s neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other “liberal” who has died in Russia.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
It is a technique that I’ve seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of “mysterious deaths” that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and adversaries who have met untimely deaths.
In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons’ “mysterious deaths” list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such thing.
“Mysterious deaths” lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.
Beyond that, Gershman’s public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning “the will” to remove Putin might — in a normal world — disqualify NED and its founding president from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers’ money to operatives in Washington and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic neocon hubris.
While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking through their “regime change” schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.
Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia’s economy scream while financing pro-Western “liberals” who would stage disruptive protests in Red Square, but he and his friends haven’t weighed the consequences even if they could succeed.
Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED’s beloved Russian “liberals” helped impose American “shock therapy” in the 1990s — an experiment that reduced average life expectancy by a full decade — it’s hard to believe that the Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.
Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might well see Moscow’s arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia’s honor. In other words, the neocons’ latest brash “regime change” scheme might be their last – and the last for all humanity.
A Neocon Slush Fund
Gershman’s arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having “democracy” in its name, NED appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington’s desires.
CIA Director William Casey.
CIA Director William Casey.
If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them to do. Put differently, NED’s name is itself a fraud.
But that shouldn’t come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging of Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the CIA’s traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable to Washington, and when they didn’t – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA’s job was to undermine and remove the offending electoral winner.
In 1983, Casey and the CIA’s top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to Reagan’s National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.
In one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment,” but he recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey wrote.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of Raymond and Casey.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy.
Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.
For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.
“Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program.”
Neocon Tag Teams
From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200,000 grant in 1984 to build “a network of democratic opinion-makers.” In NED’s first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled “Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through.”
The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)
The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O’Neil)
Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently “free,” including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.
Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing “non-governmental organizations” inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.
For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.
Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to “restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia’s NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as ‘foreign agents’ or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges.”
Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines or imprisonment.
But the Russian law would impede NED’s efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House’s rating of Russia as “not free.”
Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post’s editors and NED’s Gershman. On July 28, 2015, a Post editorial and a companion column by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was paranoid and “power mad” in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened Russian sovereignty.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.
The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move … is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May [2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’
“The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts.
“The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.”
However, among the relevant points that the Post’s editors wouldn’t tell their readers was the fact that Russia’s Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had already publicly made clear — in his Sept. 26, 2013 column — that his goal was to oust Russia’s elected president.
In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin’s government illegitimate. “Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy … was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding:
“This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.”
The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the column.
Also undercutting the column’s impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman’s intent was regarding Russia, he dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to “summon the will” to “contain and defeat this danger,” which he makes clear is the continued rule of Vladimir Putin.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).



9/11 2001



This Is One Of The Best 9-11 Videos Produced!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxxXAC3m1eQ



The Corrupt Hillary Clinton for President

The Podesta Emails; Part One

Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding."
Julian Assange

Zionist Fascism Grows Day By Day

Thousands Of Israelis Take To The Streets Calling For Palestinian Genocide

A reporter at the scene remarked that it seemed “more like a celebration of murder than anything.”
    • Google+
    The Tel Aviv rally—organized to support an Israeli soldier who murdered a wounded Palestinian by shooting him in the head as the victim lay on his back—was marked by chants and banners calling for mass murder.
    The Tel Aviv rally—organized to support an Israeli soldier who murdered a wounded Palestinian by shooting him in the head as the victim lay on his back—was marked by chants and banners calling for mass murder.
    Massive rallies and Facebook campaigns calling for Palestinian genocide are ignored by Western mainstream media and Facebook despite concerns and collaborations aimed at stopping “calls to violence”.
    Since last October, the Israeli government has accused Palestinians and their allies of “inciting violence” against Israelis, despite the fact that only 34 Israelis have died in that time frame compared to 230 Palestinians. The uptick in violence has been attributed to an internationally condemned Israeli encroachment of Palestinian lands in the contested West Bank.
    Israeli government concern over recent violence has led them to arrest Palestinians for social media content that could potentially lead to crimes. So far, 145 Palestinians have been arrested this year for “pre-crime” via social media “incitement.” This practice eventually led to a collaboration between Facebook and the Israeli government, whose joint effort to curb social media “incitement” has led to the banning of several Facebook accounts of Palestinian journalists and news agencies.
    However, social media, as well as mainstream Western media, have failed to condemn Israeli “incitement” against Palestinians, a practice that is surprisingly common considering the little to no attention it receives. Often these anti-Palestinian posts, pictures, and rallies are rife with calls for genocide, with cries of “Death to the whole Arab nation” and “Kill them all” surprisingly common.
    Even the Times of Israel ran an op-ed article about “When Genocide is Permissible” in reference to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Though the post was eventually taken down, it points to an all-too-common and dangerous mentality that social media, the Israeli government, and Western media “conveniently” ignore.
    An Israeli news agency even put the then-suspected preferential treatment to the test and found that Facebook and the Israeli authorities treated calls for revenge from Palestinians and Israelis very differently.
    Even massive rallies calling for Palestinian genocide have been ignored entirely by social media and the corporate press. Earlier this year in April, a massive anti-Palestinian rally took place in Tel Aviv where thousands called for the death of all Arabs. The rally was organized to support an Israeli soldier who killed an already-wounded Palestinian by shooting him execution-style in the head.
    Crowd chants "Elor the hero" and "death to Arabs." This seems more like a celebration of murder than anything
    The soldier, Elor Azaria, was charged with manslaughter for the killing, which occurred deep within Palestinian sovereign territory in the city of Hebron. Hebron contains an illegal Jewish settlement, but despite its illegality is protected by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) all the same. This has led to frequent clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in the area.
    The Tel-Aviv rally was attended by an estimated 2,000 people and several Israeli pop icons entertained attendees including singer Maor Edri, Moshik Afia, and Amos Elgali, along with rapper Subliminal. Chants of “Elor [the soldier] is a hero” and calls to release the soldier were common. One woman was photographed holding a sign reading “Kill them all.”
    Jewish reporter at the scene remarked that it seemed “more like a celebration of murder than anything.” Despite the obvious animosity and incitement made evident at the rally, it isn’t difficult to imagine what the response would have been if this has been a pro-Palestinian rally calling for the deaths of Jews. The stark divide between what is permissible for Palestinians and what is permissible for Israelis should concern us all as the widespread bias of social media, the press, and many governments threaten to blind us from the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    This work by --- is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.This work by True Activist is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.


    VVD Zionisme

    Kritische analyse VVD-beleid inzake het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict

    door Jan Wijenberg, zondag 02 oktober 2016

    Bespreking van: Egbert Harmsen, De kwestie Israel-Palestina sinds ’Oslo’ (1993). Uitgever Palestina Publicaties, 2016.
    Waarden en normen van de VVD ter discussie
    Om verschillende redenen komt de inventarisatie van vooral VVD-standpunten over "de kwestie Israel-Palestina sinds ’Oslo’ (1993)", samengesteld door Egbert Harmsen, op het goede moment. Al was het maar omdat Trouw op 6 september - de eerste dag van het bezoek van Premier Netanyahu aan Nederland - opent met: Top VVD waagt zich aan normen en waarden.
    Het onderzoek bestrijkt de periode 1993 tot 2015. Het vormt een nuttige aanvulling op de dissertatie van G.A. van der List, De VVD en het Nederlandse buitenlands beleid 1948 - 1994, Leiden, DSWO Press, 1995.
    Egbert Harmsen ontleedt met onweerlegbaar feitenmateriaal in krap 200 bladzijden het wetteloze en gewetenloze VVD Israël-Palestinabeleid. Hij registreert pijnlijk nauwkeurig hoe de VVD-top decennialang consequent het illegale, racistische, roofzuchtige en moorddadige Israëlische beleid verdedigt, de in het internationaal recht gegarandeerde Palestijnse rechten vrijwel steeds negeert en de Palestijnen stelselmatig demoniseert. De VVD-leiding onderdrukt actief het Israël-Palestinadebat binnen de partij (’daar komt alleen maar gedoe van’), maalt niet om de feiten, gaat aperte leugens niet uit de weg en heeft ook zelf geen boodschap aan het internationaal recht.

    De VVD kende van oudsher twee stromingen: de Thorbecke-liberalen en de ’wijn-en-kaashuisje’-liberalen, ook wel ’neo-liberalen’ genoemd. De eerste stroming - de liberalen van de individuele vrijheid en verantwoordelijkheid binnen het normatieve staatsbestel - is, zo blijkt ook uit Harmsen’s analyse, verdwenen. De tweede, de 130 km/u minnende, regels en belastingen hatende, ’hebben, houden en halen’ stroming, voert nu de boventoon.
    Hun leiders hebben bovendien een breed opgezette aanval op de rechtsstaat ingezet. [Zie Jan Wijenberg, Weg met Thorbecke, leve het populisme?, 2016-06-22, Joop.nl]

    Sommige VVD-leiders hadden, naast oog voor de veronderstelde belangen van Israël, ook wel interesse in de rechten van de Palestijnen: tot op zekere hoogte Van der Klaauw, ook Van Eekelen, Nicolaï en Van Aartsen; zij voelden zich kennelijk nog verwant aan het gedachtegoed van Thorbecke. Van Baalen, Bolkestein, Ten Broeke, Hoes, Kamminga, Manheim, Rosenthal, Rutte en Weisglas worden niet in het minst gehinderd door de kernwaarden van Thorbecke of door aantoonbare feiten. Aan het internationaal recht wordt, vaak minachtend, voorbij gegaan.
    Er is, aldus Harmsen, binnen de VVD sprake van een vruchtbare voedingsbodem voor steun aan de Staat Israël.

    De auteur toont aan, dat de hoofdlijn van het Israël-Palestina VVD-beleid sinds 1993 maar één, vooral door de trans-Atlantische oriëntatie geïnspireerd, doel kende en kent: het bevorderen van de belangen van Israël en het negeren van de Palestijnse rechten. Harmsen belicht tenminste drie structurele misvattingen in het VVD-beleid: de noodzaak van een ’evenwichtig’ beleid, dat altijd ten koste gaat van de zwakste partij, de Palestijnen; Israël als ’de enige democratie’ in een vijandige Arabische omgeving; en het garanderen van de veiligheid van Israël, een van de meest agressieve staten in de regio.

    Waar zich zwaar weer boven Israël samenpakt, zal - mochten, zoals gewetensvolle Israëlische denkers verwachten, de maatschappelijke en politieke onweerswolken zich boven de Joods/Israëlische bevolking ontladen - de vraag van de medeverantwoordelijkheid van de VVD voor de steun aan het desastreuze Israëlische regime aan de orde komen.
    Harmen illustreert met een overvloed aan feiten de teloorgang van de VVD, in essentie een bekrompen, visieloze gezelligheidsvereniging zonder debatcultuur. In die omgeving kan ’de VVD-elite’, niet te beroerd om het debat te smoren, zonder veel debat of tegenspraak ongecontroleerd haar gang gaan.

    Hierbij moet, zoals uit vele voorbeelden blijkt, ook in aanmerking worden genomen dat de VVD ten aanzien van het vraagstuk Israël-Palestina, samen met de PVV, het CDA, de CU, de SGP en enige splintergroepjes, lange tijd - en anno 2016 nog steeds - over een meerderheid in de Tweede Kamer beschikt.
    Bijgevolg heeft de coalitiepartner, de PvdA, aanvaard dat de fractie en vooral hun bewindspersonen met handen en voeten aan dit uitzichtloze beleid gebonden zijn. Ook kernwaarden en -normen zijn, zo blijkt, in de politiek onderhandelbaar.

    De onderzoeker laat het feitenmateriaal spreken. De conclusies zijn geserreerd geformuleerd. Hoewel er alle aanleiding is om politiek volstrekt gefundeerde opvattingen stevig neer te zetten, beperkt de auteur zich tot onderkoeld geformuleerde observaties en gevolgtrekkingen. Hij toont aldus zelfdiscipline en vindt goed gekozen, maar niet mis te verstane, bewoordingen.

    Het paste wellicht niet in de doelstellingen van het onderhavige onderzoek, maar twee relevante aspecten komen niet of onvoldoende aan de orde: de aard, de essentie, van het Israëlische regime en het belang van het relevante internationaal recht. De rijkdom aan aangedragen feiten verschaft meer dan voldoende aangrijpingspunten om het VVD-beleid ter zake binnen deze kaders nader te bezien.

    De VVD en het zionisme

    In de twintiger jaren van de vorige eeuw besloot de Volkerenbond de staatkundige eenheid Palestina in het leven te roepen. Het Mandaat werd toevertrouwd aan het Verenigd Koninkrijk met als opdracht Palestina tot een volwaardige staat te begeleiden. Daarin is het VK ernstig tekort geschoten.
    Israël werd in 1947/48 een afsplitsing van Palestina. In het Interbellum meldden zich zionistische - extreem religieus gemotiveerde -  terreurgroepen. Hun doel was het veroveren van Eretz of Groot-Israël, het verdrijven van de Palestijnen en de bedoeïenen en de vernietiging van hun samenleving.

    Europese aanhangers van deze fascistische stroming werkten regelmatig samen met Hitler’s nazi-Duitsland. In 1948 eigenden deze terroristen zich ten koste van de oorspronkelijke bewoners een staat, Israël, toe, in 1967 door militaire veldslagen uitgebreid met de Palestijnse gebieden - nu de bezette staat Palestina. Tot op de dag van vandaag wordt in alle openbaarheid en onverminderd gewerkt aan het realiseren van der Judenstaat [Theodor Herzl].
    Ben Gurion verdreef kort na het vestigen van de staat Israël zo’n 70% van de Palestijnse bevolking, iets dat we anno 2016 zeker als een daad van genocide zouden kwalificeren. De Palestijnen herdenken elk jaar de Nakba, de catastrofe.
    Het gerenommeerde Russell Tribunaal concludeerde in september 2014 dat Israël zich verder beweegt op de weg naar genocide op de Gazaanse bevolking.
    Op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, in Oost-Jeruzalem en ook in Israël zelf worden voor de niet-Joodse groeperingen de wettelijke, juridische, economische en sociale duimschroeven steeds verder aangedraaid.
    Dezer dagen doen weer geruchten de ronde, dat het Israëlische regime van plan is alle niet-Joden uit Groot-Israël te deporteren, waarschijnlijk naar Jordanië, Libanon en Egypte’s Sinaï-woestijn.

    Het conflict met de niet-Joden in ’Groot-Israël’ houdt de Joodse Israëliërs bijeen. Om hen in het gareel te houden, wordt deze naar aloude fascistische traditie voor een zogenaamde tweede Holocaust decennialang voortdurende angst aangejaagd. [Voor een huiveringwekkend, gedetailleerd verslag, zie Max Blumenthal, Goliath, Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, 2013, Nation Books, New York.] De hele wereld - ook Nederland, maar zeker ’de Arabieren’ - kan elk moment toeslaan. En Israël, tot de tanden toe bewapend, zal keihard terugslaan. De inmiddels diepgewortelde paranoia schept de voorwaarden waaronder rond 70% van de Joodse bevolking van Israël en bezet Palestina nu achter deportatie van vreemde elementen staat.
    Het Zuid-Afrikaanse Apartheid regime is slechts een bleke afspiegeling van de dominante fascistische, racistische, roofzuchtige en moorddadige Joods/Israëlische mentaliteit.

    Tekenen van onvermijdelijk maatschappelijk verval worden steeds duidelijker.

    Zowel Ehud Barak als de Plaatsvervangend Chef van Staven hebben er enige maanden geleden op gewezen dat de huidige mentaliteit in Israël fascistisch is, vergelijkbaar met die in het nazi-Duitsland van 1933, toen Hitler definitief de macht veroverde. [Onafhankelijke waarnemers staan over deze conclusie niet verbaasd.]

    Hanin Zoabi, het voortdurend door Joodse collega’s getreiterde Palestijnse Knesset-lid, zei tijdens de Kristallnachtherdenking in Amsterdam dat in Israël alle voorwaarden voor een Kristallnacht aanwezig zijn.

    De toonaangevende kroniekschrijver van Haaretz, Gideon Levi, roept om buitenlandse interventie om het rampzalige nederzettingenbeleid te beëindigen. Voortzetting betekent het onvermijdelijke einde van de staat Israël. Van onverwachte zijde ontvangt hij steun. Vrijwel alle nu gepensioneerde directeuren van Shin Bet [de binnenlandse veiligheidsdienst] en de Mossad [de buitenlandse evenknie] delen zijn mening en geven daar in het openbaar duidelijk blijk van.

    Tamir Pardo, voormalig chef van de Mossad, voorspelt een snel naderende burgeroorlog, gevolg van een diepgravend Joods conflict. Veel Joodse Israëli’s spreken al over ’twee Joodse gemeenschappen’, sommigen zelfs over ’twee Joodse volken’ binnen de Israëlische Joodse natie. De welvarende, politiek gematigde oorspronkelijk Europese Ashkenazim staan steeds meer tegenover de vooral uit omringende landen afkomstige Mizrahim, de ’Orientals’ en de Sephardic, of ’Spaanse’, gemeenschap. De laatsten worden tot de Orientals gerekend. Zij zijn economisch en maatschappelijk achtergesteld, sterk nationalistisch en beschikken gezamenlijk over een overgrote meerderheid. Ten koste van de Ashkenazim winnen de Orientals aan invloed, in de politiek, maar ook binnen de Israel Defence Forces.  
    Het hoeft, aldus de Sephardische Pardo, niet lang meer te duren dat de Ashkenazim en de Orientals elkaar in de haren vliegen.
    [Uri Avnery, Israel’s "raidly approaching" civil war, 04-09-2016, Redressonline.com]

    Het onverholen fascistische en racistische Israëlische regime is als eerste aansprakelijk voor de gevolgen van hun beleid. De steun van velen in de westerse wereld heeft ook bijgedragen aan de rampspoed van de Palestijnen, de bedoeïenen, de Libanezen, en binnen afzienbare tijd wellicht ook van de Joodse Israëliërs zelf.

    Bij de ’VVD elite’ valt nog geen begin aan inzicht te ontwaren in het wespennest waarin zij zich hebben begeven en in de gevolgen waarvoor zij medeverantwoordelijkheid dragen. Decennialang heeft geen enkele VVD-buitenlandwoordvoerder het fascistische en racistische karakter van de zionistische ideologie en dat regime onderkend. Toch lag en ligt het er duimendik bovenop. Dat roept de vraag naar het beoordelingsvermogen binnen de grootste partij in de Tweede Kamer op.

    Israël, een westers bolwerk in de Arabische wereld? Dan presenteert ’de Joodse staat’  het slechtste dat wij te bieden hebben.

    Het internationaal recht en de VVD
    Harmsen noemt regelmatig sommige instrumenten van internationaal recht, zoals de IVde Geneefse Conventie, zonder op de inhoud en de relevantie daarvan in te gaan. Hij zou dat als buiten zijn onderzoeksopdracht kunnen beschouwen. Anderzijds gaat hij hiermee, zoals hieronder besproken, voorbij aan de essentie.

    VVD-buitenlandwoordvoerder Han ten Broeke propageert, conform het ’neo-liberalisme’ van zijn partij, ’het eigen belang’ als leidend beginsel van de buitenlandse politiek. Daarmee maakt hij een ernstige staatrechtelijke fout, die zich ook voortdurend wreekt in het VVD-Israël en Palestina beleid.

    Alle leden van de Staten-Generaal en alle bewindspersonen hebben de eed van trouw gezworen op, onder andere, de Grondwet. Daarmee verplichten zij zich grotere rechtskracht aan het internationaal recht toe te kennen boven het Nederlandse. [Grondwet, art. 94] Ten Broeke ontkent alleen al met het beginsel ’het eigen belang’ de inhoud en strekking van zijn ambtseed. Bovendien negeert hij de Grondwet in het VVD-Israël en Palestinabeleid. Helaas staat hij daarin binnen en buiten zijn partij niet alleen.

    Jammer genoeg gaat Harmsen geheel voorbij aan de betekenis van de Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory van 9 juli 2004 van het Internationaal Gerechtshof [IGH]. Deze bindende uitspraak maakt eerdere arrangementen, zoals ’Oslo’, ongeldig en dus irrelevant. Het Hof heeft op basis van een veelheid van instrumenten van dwingend internationaal recht zijn Opinie bepaald:
    -        Israël mag, indien gewenst, wel een veiligheidsmuur bouwen, echter slechts op    eigen grond. Daarom wordt Israël opgedragen de muur, voor zover op Palestijns         gebied, af te breken en de getroffenen schadeloos te stellen;
    -        alle Joodse nederzettingen zijn illegaal. Israël dient zich volledig, vreedzaam,      zonder onderhandelingen, zonder voorwaarden vooraf, zonder ‘land swaps’,            terug te trekken achter de Groene of Bestandslijn van 1967. Pas daarna worden   de finale statusonderhandelingen op voet van gelijkheid gevoerd.
    Het IGH geeft - in het Advisory deel - ook bindende adviezen aan Israël en andere landen. De kern is tweeledig. Israël dient het humanitaire recht en het oorlogsrecht te respecteren en te honoreren. De andere lidstaten zijn gehouden Israël daartoe te dwingen.

    De leden van het parlement en de bewindspersonen zijn via hun ambtseed op de Grondwet gebonden zich te houden aan deze Advisory Opinion. In feite heeft het IGH in de partijprogramma’s van alle politieke partijen in het parlement hun Israël-Palestina paragraaf geschreven. Deze dient het centrale uitgangspunt en de basis voor het Nederlandse beleid ten aanzien van Israël en Palestina te zijn.

    In essentie wijst het Internationaal Gerechtshof de weg naar vrede tussen Israël en Palestina. Vrede bereiken berust uitsluitend op het implementeren van deze uitspraak van de hoogste rechter ter wereld. Ergerniswekkend, negeert een meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer, waaronder de VVD en de portefeuillehoudende bewindslieden, deze uitspraak. Zij schenden daarmee niet alleen  hun ambtseed, zij vormen aldus onderdeel van een daadwerkelijke internationale blokkade op een duurzame, dus rechtvaardige, vrede. Het is ook een ongehoorde minachting van en de doodsteek voor ons staatsrechtelijke bestel. Kennelijk zijn onze hoogste ambtsdragers niet geïnteresseerd in het internationaal recht en al evenmin in hun eigen geloofwaardigheid. Wanneer zelfs parlementsleden, ministers en staatssecretarissen de wet en hun ambtseed minachten, waarom zou de burger en kiezer zich dan wèl aan de wet en zijn andere burgerlijke plichten houden?

    De Nederlandse politieke partijen zijn gezamenlijk verantwoordelijk voor de handhaving van onze rechtsorde. Daarbinnen dragen zij ook de verantwoordelijkheid voor het streven naar vrede tussen Israël en Palestina. De VVD, de PVV, de CU, de SGP en de bewindspersonen van coalitiepartner PvdA hebben daar geen boodschap aan en dragen zo bij aan het afbreken van de internationale rechtsorde. De geschiedenis leert, dat de verantwoordelijke politici op zeker moment ter verantwoording zullen worden geroepen.

    Conclusie
    Onlangs definieerde Gideon Levy, de kwaliteitschroniqueur van de kwaliteitskrant Haaretz - niet bepaald verrassend - het beleid van iedere regering, zoals die van Bondskanselier Merkel, als ‘het nieuwe antisemitisme’. Ook de Nederlandse regeringscoalitie dient daaronder gerekend te worden. Zij geven carte blanche aan de ’Joodse’ staat die een lange neus trekt tegen het internationaal recht en de gerechtigheid; zij geven het rugdekking en financieren en bewapenen het. Daarmee keren zij zich tegen de kernbelangen van het Joods/Israëlische segment. Tegelijk nemen zij deel aan het vertrappen van de rechten van een al even Semitisch volk: de Palestijnen. Dat is, aldus Levy, evengoed een vorm van het nieuwe antisemitisme. [Haaretz, 20 februari 2016]

    De VVD - door een serieuze Israëlische analyticus mede beticht van het bedrijven van antisemitisme - zou zich op korte termijn moeten beraden op de integriteit van de partij binnen ons staatsbestel en - in het verlengde - op de juridische, wettelijke en morele houdbaarheid van hun huidig Israël-Palestina beleid.

    * Jan Wijenberg is oud-ambassadeur