ZGram - 12/30/2001 - "An overdue Revisionist Update"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

December 30, 2001

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

While we in North America and Europe are still largely preoccupied with the
events and aftermath of 9-11, in other parts of the world revisionism keeps
fermenting, especially in the Moslem world and Russia.  There, students and
faculty members at various universities, along with journalists,
intellectuals and political think tanks, are dealing with revisionist
topics in an ever more relevant manner.

Professor Norman Finkelstein, who recently lost his job at Hunter College
for offending the world's Holocaust orthodoxy with his strident booklet,
"The Holocaust Industry" - a huge bestselling hit in Europe! - was recently
invited to address students and faculty members at Beirut University about
the political exploitation of the "Holocaust".  Now you must know that
Finkelstein - while speaking sharply and very much to the point regarding
the Holocaust Extortion Racket - is still a bit squeamish when it comes to
the "gassing" topic, the staple of decades of painstaking Revisionist
Holocaust Debunking.  Therefore, Professor Finkelstein apparently misspoke
himself a bit, according to some of our more eagle-eyed Revisionist
compatriots - and called us, collectively, "crackpots".

Oy vey!  A tempest in a revisionist teapot resulted!

The outcome was this:  With the help of Dr. Faurisson of France, Dr.
Ibrahim Alloush, an American-trained and educated Palestinian, responded to
Finkelstein's slur with a spirited lecture of his own, described below in
detail.

We can be sure that the Yammering Agony Aunties are viewing the Alloush
counterblast with alarm.  The Wiesenthalers and the ADL/Foxman crowd must
be going ballistic once again in their Tolerance Caves!

Revisionists the world over salute Dr. Ibrahim Alloush for his initiative
and courage.  How does that proverb go that states that "...a thousand
might be hacking at the branches who won't achieve as much as the one who
puts the axe to the tap root"?

Here is the Alloush write-up, prefaced by a Revisionist cyber scout from
Canada:

"Professor Faurisson is right when he says two specters threaten Zionist
might: The so-called 'sacred terrorism' of the Muslim martyr who enacts his
suicide bombing in an Israeli civilian setting, and the unblinking scholars
who introduce Revisionist scholarship to a receptive Muslim and Arab world."

>From Lebanon, on December 20,  Dr. Alloush's e-mail on his lecture:

Please feel free to distribute this post widely

===============================================

Dear Friends,

Under the sponsorship of Al Saha Cultural Club in Beirut and Samah Idris of
Al Adab Bi-monthly Magazine, a lecture took place on Thursday, December 20,
2001, at 7 PM in Beirut, Lebanon, to tackle the issue of the "Holocaust"
and to provide a counter view to Finkelstein's approach to the subject, in
the aftermath of the latter's recent visit to Beirut.

The lecture was delivered by Ibrahim Alloush and it dealt with the
following topics:

1) what the "Holocaust" and the myth of the gas chambers is.

The "Holocaust" has three pillars:

a) the argument that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews in WWII.
In fact, the Nazi policy was to deport Jews from Germany, an objective
shared with the Zionist movement.

b) the argument that five or six million Jews died as a result of this Nazi
policy.  In fact, many Jews died in WWII in concentration camps, but so did
many others who are non-Jews.  These deaths occurred as a result of
starvation and disease.

c) the argument that the Jews who died in WWII were exterminated in gas
chambers.  In fact, [homicidal] gas chambers never existed, and no one was
able to prove their existence. Revisionist historians on the other hand
have done a lot of work proving that there was no such thing as [homicidal]
gas chambers. The response was their persecution, not their refutation.

2) what the political uses of the "Holocaust" are.

The arguments above lead to the conclusions that:

a) the Jews need a safe haven, or a homeland of their own, from which they
can be safe from the 'anti-Semitism' of this world.  This leads to the
moral necessity of "Israel's" existence.

b) the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human history, which leads to the
justification of Zionist policies and violations of international law,
provides the pretext that the uniqueness of Jewish suffering should allow
them some leeway with international law and double standards.

c) the world is morally responsible for the "Holocaust" and needs to
compensate for that by paying money and giving unlimited support to the
Zionist movement.

3) why we cannot separate the "Holocaust" from its political uses.

Each element of the "Holocaust" above has a specific political application.
Accepting the "Holocaust" while rejecting its political applications is
like accepting the tree while rejecting its fruit.  For example,
Finkelstein had to deny the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human history
to be able to reject Zionist policies, practices, and double standards.
But because he did not reject the other aspects of the "Holocaust", like
the gas chambers and the alleged policy of Nazi extermination of Jews in
WWII, he did not reject Zionist settlement in Palestine, or the concept of
a safe haven.  Technically, that is equivalent to saying that one accepts
"Israel" but not its practices.  But is it possible for "Israel" to exist
without its practices?!

4) what is lacking in Finkelstein's approach and why tackling one element
only of the "Holocaust" myth is not enough.

Finkelstein is allowed a luxury gentiles (non-Jews) are not.  He can
criticize certain aspects of the "Holocaust" without being accused of
'anti-semitism'.  The U.S. government did not interfere to prevent him from
speaking in Beirut like it did in the case of Revisionist Historians.
Logically, Finkelstein's approach is faulty.  The argument of the
uniqueness of the "Holocaust" is derived from the three elements mentioned
above.   Indeed, if there had been a Nazi extermination policy against Jews
that killed millions of them in gas chambers, that would have been
unprecedented in human history, and thus unique.  So Finkelstein rejects
the uniqueness argument, the exaggeration of the figures of alleged
"Holocaust" victims, and SOME of the political uses of the "Holocaust".
But the uniqueness argument derives from the three elements of the
"Holocaust", and one cannot reject the uniqueness argument without
rejecting the other three elements.

Definitely, Finkelstein has condemned revisionist historians as cranks and
crackpots. Hence, he has rejected the mere discussion of the other elements
of the "Holocaust".  He has taken steps towards rejecting certain political
uses of the "Holocaust", and has gotten in trouble for tackling such a
taboo subject, but not on sound basis.  His is a reformist criticism of the
"Holocaust" at best, which leaves the basis of the myth untouched.

5) why the U.S. government and ruling elites in the West need the
"Holocaust" to justify their colonial policies in the Arab World.

In fact, the "Holocaust" is necessary not only for the Zionist movement,
but Western governments and ruling elites as well. These elites need the
"Holocaust" to justify their neo-colonial policies and their unlimited
support for "Israel" before their peoples.  In that sense, the "Holocaust"
is a political weapon in the hands of imperialism, not just the Zionist
movement.

In this context, the works of Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, and others were
pointed out.  In fact, on the subject of the gas chambers, whole paragraphs
were read out in Arabic from the section dealing with that topic in Dr.
Faurisson's paper that was to be presented in the cancelled Beirut
conference. The issue of why Finkelstein was allowed to speak in Beirut
whereas Faurisson and other revisionists were not was also brought up.
Finally, the standing challenge from Dr. Faurisson to prove that any of his
conclusions were incorrect was delivered to the audience.

Following the lecture there was extensive debate as some members of the
audience seemed to have imbibed totally some of the myths of the
"Holocaust" from Dr. Finkelstein during his trip to Beirut. Some of the
audience was concerned that Finkelstein was being attacked unjustly by the
lecturer as he was fired from his job, subjected to attacks from the
Zionist lobby, and was almost prevented from speaking at the American
University of Beirut [eventually he was allowed to speak, but not in a
public lecture, but only to students and faculty].

Furthermore, many pointed out that the fact that they listened to
Finkelstein doesn't mean that they agree with everything he says.  However,
that doesn't mean we have to accuse him of objectively serving the
interests of the Zionist camp by supporting the myth of the "Holocaust" as
the lecturer claimed, according to some members in the audience.  Most of
the audience, in fact, kept an open mind on the issue of the gas chambers
[that is, they seemed to accept the position of revisionist historians on
the matter], but remained sympathetic to Finkelstein [since Arab activists
generally have a soft spot for anyone who is targeted by the Zionist lobby,
even if they are not one hundred percent].

Finally, some of them insisted that they were told by Finkelstein that he
does NOT know if the gas chambers are real or not, but that he focuses on
the political uses of the "Holocaust" only. Some suggested a debate between
Finkelstein and lecturer, to which lecturer responded that he would gladly
do it but that it would be better to prove his case (about the double
standard applied to revisionists but not others) if there was a debate as
well IN BEIRUT between Finkelstein and one well-known revisionist from
Europe or North America like Robert Faurisson or Mark Weber.

The lecturer added that it would be interesting to see if Finkelstein is
willing to discuss the matter with revisionists in the open, since they
have displayed a great willingness to have the results of their research
debated publicly .

[END]

=====

Thought for the Day:

"The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armour of righteous
cause, is stronger than all the hosts of Error."

(William Jennings Bryan)