Holocaust Day lessons

Should the lesson be attack Iran or Never Again?

After the speeches, I was a little confused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8483017.stm


I think it is a good thing to remember the Nazi Holocaust and its victims and to vow that nothing like it should ever happen again.

There is, however, a certain irony that is becoming increasingly inescapable- especially with the one year "anniversary" of the Operation Cast Lead (Gaza siege and blockade) last month.

What I found rather strange in reading bits of Netanyahu's speech was that Holocaust Day was used by Israeli leaders speaking that day to stoke anger against Iran. It seemed inappropriate to me. A day to remember suffering (and to vow not to let it happen again) used to incite people to support an attack while oppressing another entire population.

If any comparisons are drawn to the Nazi Holocaust, it should be to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians or the Nakba or something. Instead of Iran, people should reflect on their nation and what the Occupation is doing to society and democracy. I cannot believe there are Holocaust survivors who have lived to see their own people do similar things to others. Is the slogan 'never again' or 'never again to Jews'? Some Jews do argue that the Occupation is doing far more damage to Israeli society already than anything else.

A quote from the article at the top:

August Kowalczyk spent two years at Auschwitz and survived.

"This place determined who I am today, aged nearly 90," he said.

"I still have one mission - to pass on to the next generation knowledge of what happened here."

It is more than ok to remember Jewish suffering and learn about the Holocaust- for Jews and Gentiles alike. In American schools, we read Anne Frank and do special projects and have guest speakers to learn more about this horrible tragedy. I enjoyed hearing the stories of perseverance myself. I just wonder when it will be ok for Palestinians to talk openly about their tragedy and when others will openly want to learn about it. How long will it take for people to stop calling you a terrorist sympathizer for wondering why Palestinians can't have equal rights and self-determination and aren't entitled to live free and defend themselves? How long will it take for Israeli leaders to acknowledge their role in Palestinian suffering and death and express remorse and sympathy as the leaders embrace, as Germany and Israel do? I wonder when (some) Israelis and others who deny Palestinian suffering or Israeli crimes will be treated as Holocaust deniers are- marginalized and shunned instead of as one presenting valid points to consider.

Maybe you will think me horrible or an anti-Semite to suggest a similarity between Nazis and Israel. It is indeed a sick irony. I don't think I am to blame, though. I read a book last year that told of the intersecting of two lives in the past and present- a Jewish family who came in 1948 and an Arab refugee family who was forced to in 1948. The historic descriptions of the Jewish march to the trains and death camps was so strikingly similar to the descriptions of the Arabs being forced on long marches to one city and then the next, farther and farther from home. In both cases, people died on the way, had babies on the way, the women strapped gold to their bodies in the same way and for the same reasons, and both peoples left with virtually nothing but the clothes on their backs. One group, however, is allowed to remember their dead and prosecute their killers; the other isn't.


Random opinions:


The Jewish left on Holocaust remembrance:

'Holocaust remembrance is a boon for Israeli propaganda'

Finkelstein's book


An Arab opinion:

Arab MK slams Holocaust denial

Israel and Iran's UN General Assembly Speeches

The irony in Netanyahu’s talk about the Holocaust, nuclear capabilities, and peace was astounding. I guess it's not really a forum for apologizing for one's mistakes so much as telling why you are so awesome, though. I thought Iran and Israel stood out for exceptional irony. Qaddafi just stood out-- but I'm not going there.

Interestingly, people walked out on Ahmedinejad's speech when he was critical of Israel, not for the legitimate (and obvious?) reason of the disputed elections- if I have heard the news report correctly. He made some good points about double standards and Palestine, but who’s going to listen to this guy what with the dubious election results, aggressive style and his country’s own human rights record?

Netanyahu, in his UN address, started off with condemning Ahmedinejad and Holocaust denial and those who didn’t walk out on him. He used this speech as a platform to “build” a case for invading Iran. He said of the UN and all nations that were either too critical of Israel or not critical enough of Iran that they were on the side of terror (!). I’m having Bush déjà vu. His comparison of Iran and Hamas with the Nazis was gratuitous. Forget about Iran’s disputed elections, it’s always about the Holocaust (the Jewish one, not the one the Jews perpetrated), right? He condemned Iran as backward and fanatic. Nice. That should help diplomatic efforts.

And he’s trying to channel former President Bush here- trying to con people into thinking that his pet project (or diversion) is the real problem of the day:

“The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?”

Netanyahu also condemned the recent UN report, the Human Rights Council, and the whole UN for daring to say anyone other than Israel is the victim:

“We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.”

No one is allowed to deny or even debate facts surrounding the Holocaust. It’s taboo. Other people died too, but discussing it as anything but a Jewish tragedy is forbidden. But, on the other hand, saying there is no such thing as Palestinians (or making al-Nakba commemoration illegal) is not a problem. On the contrary, it’s a convenient solution. And surprisingly, it’s one people don’t dismiss out of hand. They consider it; they aren’t enraged at the suggestion and they don’t think the person who suggested it is racist or loony- like Holocaust denial or disputing various numbers or events surrounding it. If you say Palestinians didn’t exist, then you massacred nobody and nobody has a claim to the land you “found” totally (and conveniently) empty. You are occupying nobody’s land, oppressing nobody and therefore aren’t committing any crimes. Perhaps this is why Netanyahu is incensed? He’s being blamed for the tragedy of a people that he thinks don’t exist?

Here is an outright lie:

“In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

(Dov Weisglass said the intent of his government at the time was “political formaldehyde,”- his term- the holding off of real negotiations, which would mean peace- for Israel, minus responsibility for past crimes- without justice for Palestinians)

His constant assertion, here, is that Israel wants peace, but his examples are telling. He names Jordan and Egypt as successes, but the only way they got those agreements was by taking Palestinian issues off the table. These agreements were probably of significant importance in subjugating and oppressing Palestinians, since both were regional heavyweights (Egypt- militarily; Jordan- diplomatically or politically), but not so much for solving the main issue causing unrest in the region.

Netanyahu also talks about the ridiculous demilitarized state idea:

“The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.”

He just got finished talking about how it is Israel’s right to defend itself and now he turns around and says Palestinians don’t have this right?? Israel may want peace, but it has to be on Israel’s terms! Notice that mentality where he wants delegates to choose Israel’s side and reject the report or else Israel can’t make any more ‘risks for peace’:

“This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.”

To his credit, he didn’t mention equality or justice in his speech, so kudos for not lying about wanting or intending to bestow these gifts- I guess.

He goes there- to 1947. The Jews accepted this resolution; Arabs didn’t. Hmmm. What if the UN were to do the same today and give Palestinians 50% of the Israel/Palestine area. Would Jews accept that?? No way! Back then, Palestinians rightfully owned (not occupied) some 95% of the land and the UN decided to divide it in two and give 55% to this small population of Jews. That was crazy to them. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess they should have taken it, right? But, back then, I bet it seemed nuts to accept such an unfair division of their land. They didn’t really have a guarantee, though, that the Jews wouldn’t have invaded and taken more land, seeing as how they had connections to get more people and weapons from escaping Jews and all people against the Holocaust (one example, another).
*In both of those linked examples, you see the appearance of the idea that little David (Israel) was fighting big, evil Goliath (7 Arab armies), but check this, among other sources, before you swallow that whopper.

And there's the nukes. Israel won’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, like India and Pakistan, but we’re supposed to crack down on Iran. Israel succeeded in keeping their nuclear weapons program secret for a long time and considers Vanunu, who outed them, an enemy of the state who will never be free. No one thinks this odd, but Iran is assumed to be planning an imminent attack on Israel because it doesn’t want its enemies to know about its capabilities.

Freedom, justice and self-defense are Israel’s right, but not Palestinians’ as evidenced by the reservations to the Roadmap and the conditions under which Netanyahu would accept a Palestinian entity. Nuclear power and weapons are Israel’s right to have or disclose-- or not, but everyone else is subject to rules, inspections or bans.

Apartheid is bad, except when Israel does it. Ethnic cleansing is bad, except if Israel does it (it’s always “self-defense”). I’m starting to see a pattern? Are you?


Full text of the speeches (Sept. 23 & 24, 2009):

Netanyahu Speech at UN: Full Text Transcript and Video
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/netanyahu-speech-un-full-text-transcript-and-video

Transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

Finkelstein, Holocaust hoaxes and denials

I’ve been trying to put my list of books to read online so I can stop carrying around 100s of tiny bits of paper with titles or authors scribbled on them. I decided to see which ones I could find at my little local library. I found 2 or 3 of the 40 or so. I did find 2 others on the Middle East and The Conflict that sounded interesting. Prisoners was one. Should have left that one on the shelf. So, that brings me to Finkelstein’s book. I searched and found no Pappe, Findley, Segev, etc, but Dershowitz aplenty. Naturally I was pretty surprised to see Finkelstein come up in the search results.

"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" by Norman Finkelstein discusses some of these works (of fiction, as it turns out) below and the implications and or possible causes.

I would feel a little sad to read a great memoir of someone who overcomes such tragedy only to find out its a fake. Maybe it wouldn't make much difference, though. A good story is a good story. But there is just something about it being a true account. Maybe, as suggested elsewhere, the story became their own in the course of the writing such that they couldn't separate themselves from it. Creative genius?

Holocaust Memoirs Subsequently Found to be Fictional:

"The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinsky

"Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen (Finkelstein calls it “Fragments with footnotes”)

"Fragments" by Binjamin Wilkomirski

"Angel at the Fence" by Herman Rosenblat- outed ~ Dec 2008

***

"In A Nation on Trial" by Ruth Bettina Birn- an exposee on one or more of these frauds

FYI-- Raul Hilberg is thought by Finkelstein to be a Holocaust scholar, in contrast to the above collection

-----------------------------

The Holocaust isn't unique in its hoax production...

Another Hoax:

A Hoax and Honor Lost for Norma Khouri
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7966
Book: Forbidden Love/ Honor Lost

The Real Deal:

Rana Husseini: Jordanian Journalist Who Exposed 'Honor Killings' Tells Story In New Book
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/rana-husseini-jordanian-j_n_246534.html
Book: "Murder in the Name of Honor"


*
*
*

Around the time of the last Holocaust memoir hoax, the BBC discussed Holocaust denial or the taboo of questioning the Holocaust on WHYS. Finkelstein's book also reminded me of this. He comments on this taboo of how it is considered sacreligious to question details or to compare this tragedy with others or its victims with other victims. Both the book and the BBC make interesting points and raise interesting questions probably in a way that no one else can without being labeled anti-Semitic.

Here's the email with the show topic info:

Hi Chloe here,

He was ordered to leave Argentina after the inflammatory comments he made about the holocaust, now the Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson has returned to Britain. Now let's be clear in an interview with Swedish television he didn't deny the holocaust took place, but he did deny the extent of it. He said

"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.....I believe there were no gas chambers."

More here: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/holocaust.bishop.britain/index.html

ON AIR: WHAT'S WRONG WITH QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST?

Bishop Williamson isn't the first person to step into this area. British historian David Irving was sentenced to a prison term for denying the holocaust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

Richard Williamson has even been in contact with David Irving about how to present his views
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/25/13327/

We're not debating whether the holocaust took place. But is this the one event in history that can't be questioned? Some people would argue that questioning the holocaust is just an opinion, and a minority one at that, so does it matter? Isn't the right to free speech important to protect, even if we find certain views offensive? Have laws outlawing holocaust denial in Germany stopped people having those views?

Or is there a danger that people who question or deny that the holocaust took place are actually legitimising the views of Neo- Nazis.

If you're to question someone's religious faith, you wouldn't be shunned by people or lose your job. But you could be if you questioned holocaust ....Why?

There is a debate taking place already....

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/debating-holocaust-new-look-at-both.html

More here: http://hdot.org/

Speak later,
Chloe

SUGGEST A DEBATE FOR WHYS: http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/suggest-a-debate/

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WHYS PODCAST: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/whys/

Context and the Conflict

When people here talk about Israel's actions, it's always in (a) "context", always a response, always self-defense from an existential threat (??), the victims are named and sympathy expressed openly, their "struggle" is likened to the hypothetical (and unrelated) situation of Mexico or Canada lobbing rockets over our border (ridiculous in part because we aren't occupying them, bulldozing their homes, colonizing their land illegally through settlements, raiding, assassinating political leaders, arresting 100s of their people a day, bombing their apartments, schools, power stations). The disproportionate response is justified by the fact the Hamas "uses civilians as human shields" (an unsubstantiated claim in the Lebanon invasion a few years ago) and the argument that one rocket for one rocket won't end the attacks. When we talk proportion, one rocket for one rocket is not what we're talking about (aside from the fact that context is again abandoned, the occupation and its crimes ignored)- what I mean when I say that is force should be proportionate to the threat. Dropping a bomb from an F-16 on an apartment block to "target" one suspect you think is in there is disproportionate and shows a disregard for human life and international law. When casualties are as lopsided in this recent conflict as they are in the greater conflict, you have to conclude the threat was never as great as was stated and deaths could have been prevented and achieved the same goal. Unless of course the goal is to terrorize the civilians, cause further "land vacancies" by death and evacuation, rather than stop rocket attacks.

When people talk about Palestinian rocket attacks, it is without any context whatsoever as though Israel generously "pulled out of Gaza and gets rockets in return". Palestinian resistance to occupation and struggle for independence and self-determination is never mentioned, though the denial of these things is a root cause of violence. Israel's infamous pull out was stated to be "political formaldehyde" by a top official, yet it has been often cited recently as a concession for peace they should be grateful for. The pull out is cited, yet Israel still controls airspace, borders, and sea which is essentially the definition of occupation. Really, they just wanted to dump the obligations involved in Occupation, which it never lived up to anyway.

People ask all the time now, would we tolerate rockets being fired on us, but NEVER ask, would we tolerate even one element of the brutal, and at times illegal, occupation??? I mean, for example, what if someone set up a trailer in your backyard, burned your house down (with or without your family inside) and moved their family in? You and some friends retaliate, your neighborhood gets flattened, and the blame is on you because after all, you started it. Never mind that you threw a rock and tanks "responded". Proportionality doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. Palestinians don't matter. The only thing that matters are Israeli demands. After all, if you voice concern over Israel's actions, you might lose an election-- and that would be the real tragedy.


Why Do So Few Speak Up For Gaza?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/why-do-so-few-speak-up-fo_b_155814.html


Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust
By Richard Falk