Yochanan Visser als Crimineel 38

Yochanan Visser baseert zich op het boek

'“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: [As] soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."[2] 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: This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author's professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. ...The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977.[10] 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: "Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life." [12] 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] As hysteria mounts, words seem to lose their meaning: an impression which is heightened by the author's habit of italicising everything that she considers important — which is a lot. The hundreds of pages thus disfigured accentuate the feeling that the author's normal mood is rage and her favourite mode of communication a scream. In spite of its grandiose claims to have altered 'the very basis of our understanding' and to have brought knowledge where before ignorance reigned, this book is not history. As a guide to what has happened in Palestine in the last hundred years Ms Peters is about as trustworthy as her Medieval 'source' Makrizi. The prominent Zionist academics thanked in the preface for their encouragement, their 'data and statistics', their 'checking and rechecking', seem to have some explaining to do. In accepting the claims of this strident, pretentious and preposterous book, Miss Tuchman and Mr Bellow among others have shown a deplorable lack of judgment. 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