The Holocaust Controversy and Iran - Part I

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

ZGRAM - 1-5-6

To my ZGram readers and media:


This article was sent to me by a friend with the comment:

"This guy is a bit confused, i.e. Rassinier [being] a Trotskyite, 
Palestinians have 'accepted' the Jewish state, but all in all, it's 
okay, at least for a conventional article. The good news is that it's 
out and more people are aware of the fact that the so called western 
democracies imprison historical nonconformists."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\01\04\story_4-1-2006_pg3_5

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

COMMENT: Who is more civilised: Iran or the West? -Ijaz Hussain

As for why the EU should condemn Ahmadinejad's remarks as 
uncivilised, the answer is that dominant civilisations always feel 
entitled to fix the norms of international behaviour. That explains 
why the Romans considered the non-Romans as "barbarians" and why the 
Americans today look upon those who do not go along with their 
worldview of international peace and security as "rogue", "evil" or 
"terrorist"

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president has a remarkable knack of 
shooting himself in the foot. He did so last October by calling for 
Israel to be "wiped off the map". This led to an uproar in the West 
against Iran. The dust had hardly settled when he did it again, 
describing the Nazi Holocaust during World War II as a "myth". He 
also proposed relocation of the Jewish state to Europe, the US, 
Canada or Alaska. The Western countries described the statement 
variously as "outrageous", "perverse " and "shocking".

Of these comments, the one made by the EU stands out because in 
addition to traditional denunciation of the Iranian president's 
remarks as "totally unacceptable" it suggested that they "have no 
place in civilised political debate". In a tit for tat spirit Teheran 
riposted: "The European response... has no place in the civilised 
world and is totally emotional and illogical".

Why was the Western reaction so strong?

To comprehend the Western reaction, we need to understand the 
significance of the Holocaust to the West. "Holocaust" is the name 
given to the systematic and planned massacre of about six million 
Jews by Nazis during World War II. The claim of six million 
fatalities owes its origin to the Nuremberg trials where it was 
asserted for the first time.

The Holocaust was not an isolated event. It was a culmination of 
persecution and pogrom to which the European Jews were periodically 
subjected throughout the ages by the Western societies. Today it 
symbolises the collective Western guilt for what the Europeans did to 
the Jews.

After the war, [the] Holocaust was accepted as an undeniable 
historical fact. However, after a while some individuals started 
questioning it. A group of Trotskyites and anarchists led by Paul 
Rassinier, for example, dismissed the evidence of genocide. Nor did 
Holocaust denial remain limited to individuals. Towards the end of 
the 1970s there was an organised movement and Willis Carto, founder 
of Liberty Lobby, established the Institute of Historical Review 
(IHR). Over the years it attracted many adherents of whom the leading 
activists include Mark Weber, Bradley Smith and Fred Leuchter (US), 
Ernst Zundel (Canada), David Irving (England), Robert Faurisson 
(France), Carlo Mattogno (Italy) and Ahmed Rami (Sweden).

Most Western governments looked askance at the Holocaust denial but 
some of them enacted laws to make [it] a punishable offence. Today 
publicly disputing the official version is a crime in Austria, 
Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland and several other European 
countries. The situation is somewhat different in the US because of 
the first amendment, which guarantees the right of free speech, 
regardless of its political content.

Over the years a number of individuals have been fined, imprisoned or 
forced into exile from Canada and Western Europe under racial 
defamation or hate crime laws. Prominent among them include Robert 
Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, 
Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland and Guerter 
Decket, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany.

Some are currently being tried or are awaiting trial. Ernst Zundel, 
for example, went on trial in Germany on November 8, 2005. Earlier, 
he had remained in solitary confinement in Canada without a 
conviction. David Irving, apprehended last November in Austria - 
where he had gone to address a group of students - will be tried 
soon. Bruno Gollnisch, a professor at Lyon University, deputy leader 
of the extreme right French party, National Front, and a member of 
the European parliament is facing charges before a French court for 
Holocaust revisionism. The charges relate to comments made in October 
2004 suggesting the existence of Nazi gas chambers was "up to 
historians to decide".

The French anti-racist organisations are also planning to sue head of 
the National Front, Jean Marie le Pen, for having dismissed in a 
recent interview on the BBC's Hardtalk the Nazi gas chambers as a 
"detail". A similar comment he made in 1987 had caused a great uproar.

It appears thus that we live in an age of mandatory belief in the 
Holocaust. Anyone expressing doubt is liable to be rounded up and 
tried. Liberals contend that this is a violation of Article 19 of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulates: "Everyone 
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right 
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, 
receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless 
of frontiers". They also believe that this is incompatible with the 
fundamental norms of Western societies.

According to Holocaust protagonists the laws are important because 
Holocaust deniers give "legitimacy to a view that is beyond the 
bounds of decent public discourse, and provides a forum for hate". 
The real reason may be the efforts by some Western governments to 
keep a lid on what they did to the Jews. In other words, the gag laws 
are a kind of shield. The desire for atonement partly explains why 
the West helped establish Israel in Palestine and why it is committed 
to its continued existence by going to the extent of letting it 
acquire and maintain nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad's statement that "since the Westerners committed the big 
crime, they rather than the oppressed Palestinian nation should pay 
the price" needs to be seen in this backdrop. Frankly speaking, it is 
no use offering the advice because it will not be heeded. The Jews 
could have been easily settled in Australia, Canada or the US where 
there is a lot of land without people. Instead the perfidious Albion 
tried to settle them in Uganda. If ultimately Palestinians were made 
to pay the price it was because the Jews refused to accept the Uganda 
offer and insisted on Palestine.

Despite the obvious injustice to the Palestinians by the West, 
Ahmadinejad's advice is flawed on two counts. First, it is too late 
to undo what has been done. What the West can and should do now to 
expiate its sins against the Palestinians is to help them establish a 
viable state of their own. Second, since the Palestinians have 
accepted the Jewish state, Ahmadinejad's rejection smacks of 
insincerity.

As for why the EU should condemn Ahmadinejad's remarks as 
uncivilised, the answer is that dominant civilisations always feel 
entitled to fix the norms of international behaviour. That explains 
why the Romans considered the non-Romans as "barbarians" and why the 
Americans today look upon those who do not go along with their 
worldview of international peace and security as "rogue", "evil" or 
"terrorist". Therefore, the EU's description of Ahmadinejad's 
statement as being "outside civilised political debate" is hardly 
surprising. Else, as far as history and rationality go, Ahmadinejad 
clearly has better of the debate.

The writer, a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam 
University, is an independent political and legal analyst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060105/776d18cc/attachment.htm