do facts, independent of opinion and interpretation, exist at all? Have not generations of historians and philosophers of history demonstrated the impossibility of ascertaining facts without interpretation, since they must first be picked out of a chaos of sheer happenings (and the principles of choice are surely not factual data) and then be fitted into a story that can be told only in a certain perspective, which has nothing to do with the original occurrence? No doubt these and a great many more perplexities inherent in the historical sciences are real, but they are no argument against the existence of factual matter, nor can they serve as a justification for blurring the dividing lines between fact, opinion, and interpretation, or as an excuse for the historian to manipulate facts as he pleases. Even if we admit that every generation has the right to write its own history, we admit no more than that it has the right to rearrange the facts in accordance with its own perspective; we don’t admit the right to touch the factual matter itself. To illustrate this point, and as an excuse for not pursuing this issue any further: During the twenties, so a story goes, Clemenceau, shortly before his death, found himself engaged in a friendly talk with a representative of the Weimar Republic on the question of guilt for the outbreak of the First World War. ‘What, in your opinion,’ Clemenceau was asked, ‘will future historians think of this troublesome and controversial issue?’ He replied ‘This I don’t know. But I know for certain that they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.’
We are concerned here with brutally elementary data of this kind, whose indestructibility has been taken for granted even by the most extreme and most sophisticated believers in historicism. It is true, considerably more than the whims of historians would be needed to eliminate from the record the fact that on the night of August 4, 1914, German troops crossed the frontier of Belgium; it would require no less than a power monopoly over the entire civilized world. But such a power monopoly is far from being inconceivable, and it is not difficult to imagine what the fate of factual truth would be if power interests, national or social, had the last say in these matters. Which brings us back to our suspicion that it may be in the nature of the political realm to be at war with truth in all its forms, and hence to the question of why a commitment even to factual truth is felt to be an anti-political attitude.
https://idanlandau.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/arendt-truth-and-politics.pdf
In Arendt’s logica is geen speld tussen te brengen, althans niet voor logisch redenerende mensen. Het zou inderdaad ‘een machtsmonopolie vergen over de gehele beschaafde wereld’ om feiten te kunnen laten doorgaan voor opinies, en er is eveneens weinig verbeeldingskracht nodig om zich voor te stellen ‘wat het lot van de feitelijke waarheid zal zijn als de belangen van de macht, nationaal of maatschappelijk, de laatste stem heeft in deze aangelegenheden.’ Het leidde bij Arendt en andere logische denkers tot de ‘verdenking dat het eigen is aan de politiek om in oorlog te zijn met de waarheid in al haar aspecten,’ en ‘dus tot de vraag waarom vertrouwen in zelfs feitelijke waarheden gevoeld wordt als een anti-politieke houding.’
Dit inzicht is zeker van belang bij de westerse berichtgeving over het voortdurende Israelische terreur tegen de Palestijnse bevolking, die voortvloeit uit het feit dat de belangrijkste linkse- zowel als rechtse zionistische leiders al vóór de oprichting van de staat Israel heel Palestina etnisch wilden zuiveren. Dit was dan ook de reden waarom vooraanstaande joodse westerlingen al in op 4 december 1948 de volgende open brief lieten verschijnen in The New York Times, ondermeer ondertekent door Albert Einstein en Hannah Arendt:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ‘Freedom Party’ (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants, 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ‘Leader State’ is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, of which Israel's current Likud party and other right and far-right groups are the offspring, saw in Italy ‘a spiritual homeland.’
‘All my views on nationalism, the state, and society were developed during those years under Italian influence,’ Jabotinsky wrote in his autobiography, referring to his ideological formation years in Italy.
In return, Mussolini had expressly spoken in support of Zionism and of Jabotinsky in particular: ‘For Zionism to succeed, you need to have a Jewish State with a Jewish flag, and Jewish language. The person who understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky,’ Mussolini said during a private conversation with Nahum Goldman, founder of the World Jewish Congress, in November 1934, as reported by Lenni Brenner in his volume 'Zionism in the Age of Dictators.’
Il Duce – the fascist reference to Mussolini, which translates to 'The Leader’ — had already allied with Jabotinsky's Betar youth movement, which modelled itself around fascist ideas and symbols.
‘By 1934, Jabotinsky and his Betar youth movement had allied with Il Duce, when the Betar established a naval base north of Rome,’ Steven Meyer wrote in his article 'Will Israel outlive its fascists?' published in the Executive Intelligence Review in 2002.
Uit deze fascistische, zionistische beweging is Benjamin Netanyahu voortgekomen, met dezelfde meedogenloze fascistische mentaliteit die sinds langere tijd door het Westen niet alleen wordt getolereerd, maar zelfs financieel, militair en politiek met miljarden wordt gesteund, en als partner van NAVO-oefeningen functioneert. Ook de Nederlandse zionisten weigeren hierover openheid van zaken te geven, terwijl toch Ze’ev Jabotinski door Israelische historici wordt gezien als de ‘godfather’ van de oorlogsmisdadiger Netanyahu. Toch verschillen de linkse- en rechtse stroming binnen het zionisme niet zodra het aankomt op het etnisch zuiveren van Israel. Zo schreef op 12 juli 1937 de linkse leider Ben-Goerion in zijn dagboek:
The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple
– a Galilee free from Arab population.
Ben-Gurion went so far to write: ‘We must prepare ourselves to carry out the transfer’ [emphasis in original]
27 July 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos:
‘We have never wanted to dispossess the Arabs [but] because Britain is giving them part of the country which had been promised to us, it is fair that the Arabs in our state be transferred to the Arab portion’
‘It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quantity and quality… the whole younger generation of Jews from Europe and America’
Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p.297-299, p. 330-331.
See also Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, p. 182-189
Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947:
‘In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority…. There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.’
On the 6th of February 1948, during a Mapai Party Council, Ben-Gurion responded to a remark from a member of the audience that ‘we have no land there’ [in the hills and mountains west of Jerusalem] by saying: ‘The war will give us the land. The concepts of “ours” and “not ours” are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning’
(Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 6 February 1948. p.211)
Addressing the Mapai Council the following day, Ben-Gurion declared: ‘From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema… there are no Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been so Jewish. In many Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single Arab. I do not assume that this will change… What had happened in Jerusalem… is likely to happen in many parts of the country… in the six, eight or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.’
(Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 7 February 1948. p. 210-211)
And two months later, Ben-Gurion speaking to the Zionist Actions Committee on 6 April, Ben-Gurion declared: ‘We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area… I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of the Arab population.’
[Ben-Gurion, Behilahem Yisrael, Tel Aviv, Mapai Press, 1952, pp. 86-87]
Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on 12 July 1937: ‘the compulsory (gedwongen. svh) transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish State… We have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.’
(Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p. 299)
https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
Wanneer nu de zionistische ‘journalist’ Leonard Ornstein donderdag 13 mei 2021 op de Nederlandse radio verklaart dat het ‘een ontzettend lastig iets’ is ‘om de goeie balans te vinden’ en ‘wat je moet doen is, je moet echt proberen eerlijk te zijn,’ dan wordt opnieuw bewezen hoe de zionistische propaganda nog steeds de boventoon voert in de Nederlandse mainstream-media, want het is juist het feit dat het etnisch zuiveren van de bezette gebieden een simpel te bewijzen continuïteit is in de Israelische geschiedenis, en dat dit permanent verzwegen wordt door eveneens joodse, zionistische ‘journalisten’ die een persoonlijk belang hebben, namelijk het recht op terugkeer.
Waarom hebben wij in Holland niet enkele van de ontwikkelingen gezien waarover Amira Hass schreef en zag in Gaza en Ramallah? Waarom hebben wij daar nooit over gediscussieerd???
Een luid gejoel steeg op. Een jonge vrouw in het publiek reageerde onmiddellijk met de opmerking:
Spreek voor je zelf. Je moest je schamen dat je dit vraagt. Als je het had willen zien dan had je het makkelijk kunnen zien. Veel buitenlandse journalisten hebben daarover geschreven, veel mensen hier zijn in Israël geweest en zagen zelf wat daar gebeurde. Als journalist zou je hebben moeten spreken met de mensen die daarheen gingen en terug kwamen, en verhalen te vertellen hadden,
daarbij verwijzend naar de spontaan applaudiserende joodse Nederlanders in de zaal, aangezien die jarenlang tevergeefs hadden aangeklopt bij gecorrumpeerde journalisten als het koppel Van Weezel-Ornstein. Het was de spijker op de kop. Veel Nederlandse journalisten zijn zodra het Arabieren betreft bevooroordeeld. Zo werkt in het ‘vrije Westen’ het mutualisme van de parasiterende pers en politiek, beiden profiteren van elkaar.
Hetzelfde verschijnsel treedt op in de relatie joden en niet-joden. Door een onverwerkt schuldgevoel van de gojim die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog collaboreerden of de andere kant opkeken, terwijl hun joodse buren naar de vernietigingskampen werden gedeporteerd, zijn de joden vandaag de dag 'vrijwel heilig verklaard,' zoals Jan Blokker vaststelde. Via hen kan de Nederlander laten zien hoe politiek correct hij of zij vandaag de dag is tegenover de joodse medemens. Een groot deel van de Nederlandse ‘politiek-literaire elite’ staat zelfs blind achter de zelfbenoemde 'Joodse staat.' Opvallend is dat zodra er over joden wordt gesproken er altijd onmiddellijk het zelfstandig naamwoord mensen aan wordt toegevoegd, om toch maar héél duidelijk te maken dat de spreker joden beschouwt als echte mensen, niet wetend dat dit eerder een slecht geweten verraadt dan het tegenovergestelde. Het politieke misbruik van de holocaust is inmiddels weerzinwekkend geworden.
a power monopoly is far from being inconceivable, and it is not difficult to imagine what the fate of factual truth would be if power interests, national or social, had the last say in these matters. Which brings us back to our suspicion that it may be in the nature of the political realm to be at war with truth in all its forms, and hence to the question of why a commitment even to factual truth is felt to be an anti-political attitude.
De van Elsevier afkomstige 'journaliste' Jannie Schipper, onthouden die naam.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten