'“From Time Immemorial” van Joan Peters' om tot de slotsom te komen dat 'het grootste deel van de Arabische bevolking die vandaag het Heilige Land bezetten, [is] samengesteld van immigranten die afkomstig zijn uit diverse Arabische landen.' Zie: http://www.israelfacts.eu/ Let wel, in zijn propaganda 'bezetten' de meeste Palestijnse Israeli's 'het Heilige Land', en is er dus geen sprake van een Joodse bezetting van de Westbank, waar Visser op gestolen Palestijns land leeft. Mensen met een psychische stoornis kunnen voor zichzelf de werkelijkheid 180 graden keren. Sommigen denken Napoleon te zijn, anderen denken weer Joden te zijn die een historisch recht hebben op land dat door Palestijnen wordt 'bezet.' Nu de feiten die deze propaganda tegenspreken en die Yochanan Visser verzwijgt omdat ze niet in zijn versie van de werkelijkheid pasen, en dus geen rechtvaardiging bieden voor zijn diefstal van Palestijns land. Over From Time Immemorial: According to Frank Menetrez, writing in CounterPunch, “when a number of scholars examined the book carefully, they concluded that it was of no scholarly value whatsoever. It ignores important parts of the documentary record, misuses the sources on which it does rely, and contains straightforward logical errors. Consequently, according to Menetrez, "Peters’ book has been rejected as worthless by the scholarly community around the world, including Israel" [7] Norman Finkelstein wrote Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, where he argued that much of Peters' scholarship was fraudulent. Finkelstein's allegations that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized Peters' book became a central issue in the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. An investigation conducted at Harvard, where Alan Dershowitz is employed, found the allegation to be unfounded.[8][9] Noam Chomsky defended and promoted Finkelstein's critique, commenting:
Chomsky was also doubtful that the book was genuinely written by a person named Joan Peters and believed that "probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that". Chomsky further argued, that the near unanimous support for the book within American intellectual circles, the total boycott of the intellectual community of Norman Finkelstein and the refusal of any major American media outlet to publish any negative reviews of the book (particularly Finkelstein's) exposed the level of intellectual bankrupcy and subservience to power among American intellectuals and the media. [2] Robert Olson was among the few authors to write a critical review of the book before it was released in England. He concluded:
Reviewing the book for the November 28, 1985 issue of The New York Times, Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath described the book as a "sheer forgery," adding that "[i]n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon." [11] In a later review on the January 16, 1986 issue of The New York Review of Books, he wrote that Peters made 'highly tendentious use — or neglect — of the available source material'. But more crucial, he wrote, "is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements." Porath concluded:
Adam Shatz wrote in Slate, 8 April 1998: "Peters' book was lavishly praised by American Jewish organizations, novelists, and scholars. But when Finkelstein showed that Peters had manipulated Ottoman demographic records to make her case, the book's supporters attacked him as an anti-Zionist. By 1986, though, Zionist scholars having published articles that bolstered Finkelstein's case, his version was the conventional wisdom", adding a long list of quotations from reputable scholars to bolster his point.[13] In a lengthy review in the London Review of Books, Ian and David Gilmour harshly criticized the book, concluding as follows.[14]
Avi Shlaim, professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, and considered one of the leading New Historians[15] on the Arab-Israeli conflict, has called the book "completely preposterous and worthless".[16] Les verder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Time_Immemorial |
maandag 11 januari 2010
Yochanan Visser als Crimineel 38
Abonneren op:
Reacties posten (Atom)
Halsema; Simply put, American politicians have sold their conscience for AIPAC blood-soaked money.
https://x.com/umyaznemo/status/1873381111470166220 Rania @umyaznemo Simply put, American politicians have sold their conscience for AIPAC ...
-
Ziehier Yoeri Albrecht, die door een jonge journalist van het mediakanaal Left Laser betrapt werd tijdens een privé-onderonsje met twee ...
-
NUCLEAR ARMS AND PROLIFERATION ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVISM MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX A Women state legislators and advocacy group...
-
“We Just Do What the Israelis Want Us to Do” The Scourging of Gaza: Diary of a Genocidal War Jeffrey St. Clair December 21, 2024 + On Dece...
2 opmerkingen:
En afgezien van die 180 graden, willen de Palestijnen eigenlijk ook bezet blijven worden door de Israëli's. Zo gek als een deur, die Visser.
Nou, die mevrouw Peters ontkent glashard het bestaan van Palestijnen. Die zijn allemaal op de door de zionisten geschapen Werkgelegenheid afgekomen gastarbeiders. Achach. En wat je met gastarbeiders moet doen weet geestverwant Wilders wel.
En dan te bedenken dat onder de Britse koloniale administratie van Palestina letterlijk geen ezel of kameel ongeteld is gebleven, laat dat maar aan de Britten over. Ik heb de desbetreffende papieren met lichte verbijstering door mijn handen laten gaan toen ik Geschiedenis van het Moderne Nabije Oosten studeerde. Maar ja, wie ben ik ? Maar een eenvoudige bestudeerder van het Midden-oosten.
Een reactie posten