Debates
|
Negacionismo |
|
I do not think it is correct to say that the recent
conference in Terehan was convened to deny the facts of the "Holocaust".
If anything it was convened to counter the myth which has been
cultivated around the Holocaust: namely that the Holocaust constitutes
an irrefutable and unambiguous justification for any and every act or
policy of the State of Israel under the pretext that the alleged world
complicity in the persecution and murder of millions in Europe-- many,
if not most of which were defined as Jews for this purpose-- gives it a
quasi-divine right to act above international law or the laws of
nations.
In fact there is a difference between the facts of
the mass murder perpetrated between 1939 and 1945 under the auspices
of a European fascist regime operating in Europe and the premise of
Israeli state ideology and action. If the State of Israel--
geographically a non-European state-- had or has a basis of action
under international law or human rights principles (i.e. UN
Charter), then such action could only be against certain European
states and their legal successors. Instead the State of Israel
pursues a policy of "collective guilt" against all countries which
complain against or oppose, either passively or actively, its
policies and actions. This doctrine of "collective guilt" is based
on a distortion and a myth. Not only those meeting in Iran but those
within and without Israel who oppose the aggressive seizure of
territory from foreign countries by force of arms, the establishment
and maintenance of racist, segregationist and (not forgetting that
it was a policy of South Africa and not South Africa itself which
the UN declared to be a violation of human rights and international
law) apartheid policies, rightly attack this myth concocted and
perpetuated to justify any act of the State of Israel.
In 1939 a European state armed to the teeth with the
covert support of industrial and financial interests throughout
Europe and North America commenced a war based on the myth that
Bolshevism and Judaism, membership in the Sinti and Roma
communities, homosexuals, and anyone else who was opposed to the
"proper place" of this European state and its economic backers, must
be destroyed or rendered harmless. They drew support from
ultranationalist and fascist movements throughout Europe-- including
those who called themselves Zionists. When the war was over and
millions had met their death, the only group that survived to insist
on its ultranationalist and fascist territorial ambitions were those
who led the conquest of Palestine.
Today this group continues the alliance with the
forces that supported the fascists in that European state. That
European state has managed with great effort to suppress most of its
fascist elements to become one of the most democratic states in
Europe. Meanwhile the combination of ultranationalist and fascist
myth-makers and industrial-military-financial forces are saturating
the Near and Middle East and Central Asia with military forces which
if allowed to pursue their stated goals may well bring us into a
third world war.
The myths fabricated around the mass murders of world
war II are not unlike the "dagger in the back" myth used to justify
the war in 1939. They are not unlike the myths propagated by the
Roman Catholic Church in order to motivate the Crusades-- a brutal,
murderous series of actions subjugating the population of Palestine
and the adjacent region.
Although the conference in Iran has had just as
little impact in clarifying the issues obfuscated by the government
of the State of Israel and its allies as most other attempts to
inform people about the motives and risks of war in the region, it
is a gross distortion to claim that the conference was convened to
deny historical facts.
Perhaps such fora as HuD could contribute pressure on
serious historians to distance themselves from state mythologies
aimed at justifying conquest and human rights violations. One of the
classical methods of refuting a myth is to show that it is based on
inaccuracies and exaggerations or that source material is
manipulated or that countervailing interpretations of the same facts
are suppressed. Alas these are the only methods we have of refuting
myths aside from point blank denial.
If however we do not want to deal with the
reliability of data or its objective use, then we may certainly call
into question the nature of the agent. It is not normally considered
a defence for an assailant to argue that he is acting on behalf of
someone who never gave him authorisation to so act or for an
assailant to claim the right to "revenge" against third parties for
acts not done to him or done by said third parties. The State of
Israel is an assailant claiming the right to revenge for acts not
done to it and against persons who were not even party to the acts
alleged.
Either the facts are in dispute or the standing of
the complainant. These are the rational avenues open to those who
want to argue whether the myths of the holocaust as formulated and
propagated under Israeli state policy are justifiable. There is
every reason to believe that the myth is based on historical
distortions by the State of Israel and that that state lacks
standing to act in the way it does.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/ Cordialement/
Cordiali saluti/ Yours sincerely
Dr. Patrick Wilkinson
Institute for Advanced Cultural Studies - Europe
Kirchstrasse 32
D-40227 Düsseldorf
|