The Right to Question "History!" Israel is illegitimate -- any well reasoned "humanity check" would seet that, the territory of an indigenous people is realized through brutal violence and murder is a hideous dagger thrust into the heart of a morality-based world. Zionist Jews unleash atrocities upon Palestinians similar to those atrocities that Jews suffered under Nazism to implement their own malevolent strategy
- From: "Jason P" <jaspetr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Dec 2005 19:47:46 -0800
The Inalienable Right to Question History
by Kim Petersen
Progressivism, Skepticism, and Historical Revisionism: The Inalienable
Right to Question History
The statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have a penchant
for attracting the opprobrium of the western world.
On 14 December, Ahmadinejad, whose comments were carried live on
Iranian state television's Arabic-language satellite channel Al-Alam,
spoke to thousands of people in the southeastern Iranian city of
Zahedan.
Controversially, he declared, "Today, they have created a myth in the
name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the
prophets."
He then asked Europeans, "If you committed this big crime, then why
should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?"
Ahmadinejad has a proposal though: "If you committed the crime, then
give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or
Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country."
Flood of Denunciations
Predictably, Israeli government official Mark Regev described
Ahmadinejad's remarks as "outrageous", as did Austrian Chancellor
Wolfgang Schüssel.
US State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli called Ahmadinejad's
remarks "appalling and reprehensible." Democratic Senator John
Kerry jumped into the fray saying that questioning of the Holocaust
"is beyond unacceptable."
In Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime, politicians unanimously
denounced the Iranian president's remarks, calling them "completely
unacceptable."
Even French extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen found
Ahmadinejad's remarks "shocking" and disavowed himself of them.
Leaders at a EU summit in Brussels, Belgium released a statement
describing Ahmadinejad's comments as "wholly unacceptable" and
that they had "no place in civilized political debate."
Ramifications
In an assault on freedom of speech, the EU leaders warned that Iran
might face sanctions because of Ahmadinejad's remarks. Iranian
officials went into damage control mode. They said that Ahmadinejad's
comments had been misunderstood. Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pur
Mohammadi clarified Ahmadinejad's comments to mean that those people
who had victimized the Jewish people should atone for the victimization
-- a sensible proposition.
Why Iranians might face sanctions for the statements of one individual
citizen, albeit the elected leader of the country is perplexing. Are
Americans responsible for the pronouncements of President George W.
Bush? Are Israelis responsible for the pronouncements of Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon? Insofar as some of people freely choose such characters
to be their leaders then, yes, there must be some culpability. But such
leaders are not chosen by every member of society.
What about freedom of speech? Is freedom of a speech a universal
principle or is it to be delimited by Big Brother -- therefore,
destroying the notion of freedom of speech?
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10
December 1948 calls for "the advent of a world in which human beings
shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief" which is among "the
highest aspiration of the common people."
UDHR Article 19 decrees:
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 and
regardless of frontiers.
Just as Ahmadinejad's right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by the
UDHR, so is the free speech of his detractors. Everyone is free to
denounce what he says but all free-speech advocates should be opposed
to attempts to suppress what he may say.
Anti-Censorship
Previously, I wrote an article that dealt with earlier comments of
Ahmadinejad that riled one reader. [1] The reader, who didn't wish to
get into a public debate, is affiliated with an anti-censorship
organization but nonetheless stated the "correct course of action"
would be to remove the article he found disagreeable. His affiliation
and contradictory demand should be sufficient grounds to debase any
further arguments the reader had. He had none. It was a veiled protest
against points of view he did not like. His polite protest:
Mr. Petersen's response to the news explosion after Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad called on Muslim activist youth to "wipe Israel off the
map" falls into a pattern of partisan rationalization for atrocities
which is one of the sadder embarrassments of Left history. I am sure
the slander and depredations of the Roma under Stalin's reign of terror
were rationalized and dismissed with adroit ideological verbage [sic],
by the US Communist Party, and other progressives. I am afraid Mr.
Petersen falls into similar error. His reasoning is outright fractured:
60 years ago, he argues, in a profoundly cynical observation, David Ben
Gurion said he would expect Palestinians to seek to violently drive
Jews out of the Holy Land. From this Mr. Petersen reasons that a
hardline, oppressive theocratic extremist, inciting mass communal
hatred and violence now, toward Israeli Jews must be OK. He draws
several very similar false "parallels" in support of the same
conclusion -- that calling for the wiping of a nation off the map can't
be violently prejudicial or even anti-Israel. But of course Ahmadinejad
was a genocidal incitement, as even a 1-year-old could see. It takes
real sophistication to construct an argument to the contrary, and a
great deal of resolute self-indoctrination to believe that argument.
That is a disturbing misuse of intellectual and verbal gifts.
My writing is unequivocal: I deplore all crimes against humanity,
especially the insidious crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide and
that includes the ethnic cleansing and genocide carried and being
carried out in my country of birth, Canada. Ahmadinejad's ineloquent
statements were in response to ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Hyperbolically ascribing Ahmadinejad's call to being a "pattern of
partisan rationalization for atrocities which is one of the sadder
embarrassments of Left history" is but to declaim assertively.
Ben Gurion's profound "cynicism" belongs to him. I merely quoted
him to reveal the Zionist mindset -- not my own.
The illegitimate violent entity that occupies Palestine and calls
itself Israel is much more deserving of the litany of adjectives:
"hardline," pandering to "oppressive theocratic extremists,"
and "inciting mass communal hatred and violence" toward non-Jews.
Why should the rights of the ethnic cleansers and supporters of ethnic
cleansing take precedence over the victims of this ethnic cleansing?
This is morally contemptible and backwards.
Israel is illegitimate. Any well reasoned "humanity check" could
not arrive at any other conclusion than that the establishment of a
state on the territory of an indigenous people through brutal violence
and murder is a hideous dagger thrust into the heart of a
morality-based world.
Israel does not belong on the map -- at least not in its present form.
As for the terminology of "wiping" it off the map, the reader
concluded that such a statement indicates genocide; therefore, by sound
deduction, the reader should also consider that the wiping of Palestine
off the map was and is genocide. Nevertheless, the reader incorrectly
interpreted Ahmadinejad's statement: "A call to 'Wipe Israel off
the Map' is an open call for genocidal slaughter." By definition,
to wipe a state off the map does not imply to wipe a people off a map.
People are usually not found on maps. The elimination of a geographic
designation is not genocide. Maybe an extremely precocious one-year-old
child might consider this as "genocidal incitement" but logical
adult analysis reveals otherwise.
To build a case for someone being opposed to the state of Israel, one
must first establish that there is such an entity that can legitimately
lay claim to statehood in the circumscribed geographical region;
otherwise such claims are completely baseless.
"Myth in the name of Holocaust"
Ahmadinejad's denouncers never refuted through argumentation or
presented facts to counter what he had said. The best attack that his
detractors could muster was to hurl abuse and vent their disagreement.
Epistemologists recognize this is as an intellectually bereft form of
refutation. It must be pointed out, however, that Ahmadinejad's
statements were also assertions.
Ahmadinejad's assertion of a "myth in the name of Holocaust" is
vague. What did he mean by a myth? That a genocide in which Jews
perished during World War II never happened? Unlikely. There are few
people who actually deny that the Nazis victimized Jews in large
numbers. What is termed "Holocaust denial" is, in fact, the
questioning of the historical veracity of the numbers of Jews murdered
and the method by which the victims were killed.
On the day of the American 9-11 (there is, of course, the Chilean 9-11
which saw a ruthless, US-backed right-wing junta overthrow an elected
government), it was initially reported that there were over 6,000
fatalities. Subsequently this figure decreased until the current
fatality count of 2,986.
That massive numbers of people including Jews who perished during WWII
is a great tragedy for humanity. However, that the WWII holocaust has
been appropriated as a uniquely or predominately Jewish cataclysm is
mendacious and reprehensible in its disrespect to the other victims of
Nazism. Even if the 6 million figure so often cited as the total of
Jewish deaths during WWII is accurate, it is still dwarfed by the
deaths of citizens of the Soviet Union, which is over 23 million. [2]
But the six million figure of Jews killed by Nazis during WWII is
challenged by some people. For this, Holocaust skeptics such as French
academician Robert Faurisson, British historian David Irving, and
long-time Canadian resident but German citizen Ernst Zündel have been
variously ostracized, beaten, deprived of residence, deported, and
jailed. People are imprisoned for the sin of doubting! Such is the
vehemence attached to denying the six million number.
Philosopher and sociologist Jean-Michel Chaumont likened Holocaust
uniqueness to a kind of "intellectual terrorism": a terrorism of
the mind that allows for physical terrorism to be excused. [3]
The notion of Jewish exceptionalism stems from the biblical designation
of Israelites being the Creator's "chosen people" -- which is
tantamount to racism. This Jewish exceptionalism has been exploited to
carve out an exclusive niche of WWII victimization. This is contrary to
progressive principles that hold egalitarianism to be a universal and
fundamental tenet.
Why can this number not be questioned? Will intense scrutiny not verify
the verisimilitude of the number? [4] What kind of society is it that
tells its citizenry that certain "truths" are beyond reproach and
off limits to open-minded or skeptical enquiry?
Professor of political theory Norman Finkelstein questions the Jewish
uniqueness and asks what gives them a "claim upon those others."
[5] The Holocaust industry, according to Finkelstein "has become an
outright extortion racket ... [conducting a] double shakedown of
European countries as well as legitimate Jewish claimants ..." [6]
Jews were persecuted and killed during WWII. The photographic evidence,
eyewitness and survivor accounts of Nazi captivity are undeniable. Sure
photographs can be faked and false tales conjured up, but the sheer
scale of such a massive coordinated mendacity required argues against
this. The incarceration and killing of Jews and other victims is a most
shameful act in human history. But to compound one shameful act with
further crimes against humanity only perpetuates and accentuates
further acts of shamefulness.
That the Nazis killed large numbers of Jews during WWII is a historical
black mark on the Nazi regime. Accuracy and, more importantly, veracity
are also important. But to intentionally inflate or deflate the numbers
dishonors the sacrifice of the victims.
The Jewish victims are also dishonored by some people appropriating
exclusivity to WWII victimhood. They are dishonored by some people
railing against any inquiry, rationale or otherwise, into history that
deviates from a designated truth. This militates against a fundamental
plank of human rights: the freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the focus on numerical accuracy distracts from the memory
of the WWII victims. The focus has been distracted from the horrors of
war perpetrated by the Nazis [7] to a focus on the numbers and freedom
of speech. Assertions by one side in a dispute must not be reciprocated
with counter assertions but instead skewered with verifiable facts and
well reasoned argument.
That Jews in large numbers were among the Nazi victims during WWII is
no myth. That authorities in society would abuse the human rights of
individuals simply for exercising their freedom to speak thoughts that
are different from the views proclaimed by governments, serves well the
aims of those who seek to mythologize the victims of WWII.
In the spirit of openness and free speech, each person's words must
be allowed to stand for all others to contemplate and judge for
themselves. There is no need to censure anyone's speech or thoughts.
Free speech and historical revisionism must not become a vehicle to
divert attention away from current crimes against humanity.
Most horrendously, the misuse of Jewish victimhood as a shield, whereby
Zionist Jews could unleash atrocities upon Palestinians similar to
those atrocities that Jews suffered under Nazism to implement their own
malevolent Lebensraum strategy, utterly abases the memory of the
victims as well as disgraces the long- and oft-violated "Never
again" mantra. The ethnic cleanser-occupier must end the occupation.
The ethnic cleanser-occupier must allow for the international
right-of-return. Just as the Jews sought and received apology and
reparations for Nazi war crimes, the ethnic cleanser-occupier must
sincerely apologize and indemnify the Palestinian victims and vacate
stolen territory.
Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional
Mi'kmaq homeland of Nova Scotia, Canada.
He can be reached at: kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.mathaba.net/news
.
- Prev by Date: Ethiopian Jews struggle to assimilate in Israel -- still treated as non-Jews and outsiders there
- Next by Date: Re: My lunch news
- Previous by thread: Ethiopian Jews struggle to assimilate in Israel -- still treated as non-Jews and outsiders there
- Next by thread: 'Anti-Semitism', The Provocative Accusation -- "...a very real and concerted effort on the part of some Jews in order to discredit dissent and critics by way of accusing them of "anti-Semitism," or labeling them a "self hating Jew," in the case of Jewish critics of Zionism and our Zionist-Israeli policies." --Noam Chomsky
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
