Yochanan Visser als Crimineel 28

Yochanan Visser met JNF-petje

Yochanan Visser is a Dutch-language analyst for the Israel Facts Group (www.israelfacts.eu), a European media watchdog organization, as well as manager of Israel Facts Monitorgroup and www. israelfacts. eu. He lives in Efrat, Israel.

Yochanan Visser,

Hoewel u uzelf telkens weer afschildert als slachtoffer, bent u dit niet. En ook de andere extremisten onder de zionisten voor wie u een spreekbuis bent, zijn geen slachtoffers. Integendeel, u bent inmiddels een dader die terreur bedrijft tegen de Palestijnse burgerbevolking. Daarentegen is Hajo Meijer iemand die wel een slachtoffer was, maar zich geenszins als zodanig gedraagt. Integendeel, hij is een man die opkomt voor de slachtoffers van uw terreur. Ik heb net dit over de hoogbejaarde Meijer geschreven:

Gistermiddag hield een groep mensen een Wake op de Dam ter herinnering aan het begin van het Israelische aanval, precies een jaar geleden, op de Palestijnse burgerbevolking in Gaza waarbij tenminste 1400 Palestijnen gedood werden, de meerderheid van hen burgers van wie eenderde kinderen. Het door de internationale gemeenschap als oorlogsmisdaden betitelde Israelische geweld werd door de 85-jarige Hajo Meijer, overlevende van Auschwitz, gekwalificeerd als 'staatsterreur'. Hij wees erop dat er een ononderbroken lijn loopt van Guernica, Warschau, Rotterdam naar Gaza. 'In alle gevallen werd getracht de bevolking op de knieen te dwingen door staatsterreur.' Meijer citeerde in dit verband de Israelische generaal Eisenkott die de zogeheten Dahiye Doctrine van het Israelische leger als volgt formuleerde: 'What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force at the heart of the enemy's weak spot (civilians) and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages (towns or cities), they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.' En het doel ervan is volgens de Israelische generaal b.d. Giora Eiland om 'the national infrastructure' te vernietigen 'and (inflicting) intense suffering among the population.'

Met andere woorden: collectief straffen van de burgerbevolking, hetgeen een oorlogsmisdaad is, verboden volgens de Vierde Geneefse Conventie. Hajo Meijer benadrukte dat 'niet alleen Israel hiervoor verantwoordelijk is, maar de hele westerse wereld, met Nederland in een prominente rol. Het onwettig en onmenselijk gedrag wordt getolereerd, er staan geen sancties op voor Israel. Onze regering is een hoofdverantwoorlijke voor het gedogen van de Israelische misdaden. De regering en de burgers die dit accepteren dragen bij aan het moreel faillissement van de westerse wereld. Vanaf de Eerste Wereldoorlog via Hitler en de Holocaust loopt dit moreel faillissement door naar de Naqba en Gaza. Zonder enig grootschalig protest van de westerse wereld heeft er een bewuste massamoord in Gaza plaatsgevonden, waarbij 1440 mensen omkwamen, van wie 431 kinderen. En dit nog los van de betreurenwaardige na-effecten door de verhoogde gevallen van kanker en baby's met aangeboren afwijkingen, als gevolg van de ingezette wapens. Het bloedbad gepleegd door het Israelische leger in Gaza is absoluut geen oorlog, zoals de westerse media doen voorkomen, maar een bewuste massamoord, een collectieve bestraffing volgens de nieuwe strategie van de IDF: de Dahiye Doctrine,' aldus Meijer die als joods slachtoffer Auschwitz overleefde.

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2009/12/de-israelische-terreur-1083.html

Yochanan Visser, hoe verklaart u het dat een slachtoffer van de nazi-terreur wel opkomt voor de slachtoffers van de terreur van extremisten onder de zionisten, en u niet? Het lijkt raadselachtig, maar is dit misschien juist niet. Vele jaren geleden zei de joods-Israelische auteur Abraham Yehoshua tegen me: ‘De haat komt voort uit onze schuldgevoelens. Des te onrechtvaardiger we tegen de Palestijnen zijn des te meer we ze haten.’ Wat is uw reactie hierop? En leest u het volgende eens:

Israel: A Monster Beyond Control?

By Alan Hart

27 December, 2009
Alanhart.net

On the first anniversary of the beginning of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip – in my view it was a demonstration of Israeli state terrorism at its most naked – it’s not enough to say that the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in Israel’s on-going collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, 53% of whom are children.

What is actually happening in the blockaded Gaza Strip, and less obviously on the occupied West Bank, is the continuation by stealth of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. My friend Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “revisionist” (meaning honest) historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, would and has put it another way. What we are witnessing is, in his words, “genocide in slow motion.” And that, really, is what the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in.

The question that provokes in my mind is: Why, really, are the major powers (and others) allowing it to happen?

The only answer that makes some sense to me is this. They have concluded, but cannot say, that nuclear-armed Israel, with the assistance of the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations, is a monster beyond control.

In my analysis it’s possible to identify the moment in history when the major powers abandoned any hope they might have had of containing Zionism’s colonial ambitions.

It came, the moment, in the immediate aftermarth of the 1967 war.

Contrary to Zionism’s version of the story, it was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defense. As I document in some detail in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s military and political leaders knew the Arabs were not intending to attack.

That being so, what the major powers ought to have said to Israel (in the diplomatic language of a Security Council Resolution and more explicitly behind closed doors) is something like: “Aggression cannot be rewarded. Aggressors cannot keep territory conquered in war. You are now required to get the hell out of it without laying down conditions for your withdrawal.”

To drive home the point, they could and should have reminded Israel of what President Eisenhower said to the people of America when he demanded Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from Egyptian territory after its collusion with Britain and France in 1956. Eisenhower, the first and the last American president to contain Zionism, said this:

“If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and gaining national advantage… If the UN once admits that international disputes can be settled using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organisation and our best hope for establishing a real world order.”

As it happened, the major powers could not say that to Israel in 1967 because the Johnson administration had colluded with Israel to the extent of giving it the greenlight to smash Eygpt’s armed forces, in the hope that a humiliating defeat for them would lead to the overthrow of President Nasser.

But also true is that President Johnson sought and obtained an assurance that Israel would not take advantage of the war situation to grab Jordanian and Syrian territory. It was because some in the Johnson administration (probably Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) didn’t trust Israel to keep its word that the U.S. spy ship, the Liberty, was stationed off the Israel/Gaza coast to listen to IDF movement orders. And it was because Israeli Defense Minister Dayan didn’t want Johnson to know that he intended to take the West Bank and the Golan Heights that he, Dayan, ordered the attack on the Liberty. (The full story of that attack and Johnson’s cover-up of it is also in my book, in a chapter headed The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day”).

Despite that, the major powers, including and led by America, could still have acted firmly to contain Zionism’s colonial ambitions. They could have said to Israel something like: “We can just about live with the fact that you will retain the newly occupied Arab territories as a bargaining chip, to be exchanged for peace with your Arab neighbours, but we will not allow you to settle those territories. Not one building. If you defy us on this matter, the Security Council will authorize enforcement action as necessary to oblige you to comply with international law.”

In what became Security Council Resolution 242, it was the failure of the major powers to read the riot act to Israel on the matter of not settling the newly occupied territories that marks the moment when they, the major powers, became resigned to the fact that the Zionist state, assisted by its awesomely powerful global lobby, was a monster they could not control. (They could slap it on the wrist from time to time but not control it).

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way. (In my book I explain, on the basis of a conversation with Dayan, the real reason for Israel’s decision to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It was to have the deterrent threat capability of saying to its friends, “Don’t push us further than we are prepared to go or we’ll use these things.”)

So in the full light of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, it’s not surprising that the major powers (and others) are today complicit, more by default than design I say, in Zionism’s crimes.

Lees verder: http://www.countercurrents.org/hart271209.htm

Yochanan Visser, in afwachting van uw antwoord

Stan van Houcke

Journalist/schrijver

Amsterdam