Just over half a century ago, the world saw one of the most despicable events – lasting more than half a decade – in contemporary history being perpetrated from within the heart of Europe and dragging much of the world into a war. That “event” was more than a decade of Nazi rule in Germany, the Second World War (or the Second European Tribal War, as Malcolm X preferred to call it) caused by that rule and, most especially, the deliberate, planned and systematic genocide of a number of groups of people: Jews, Roma (commonly called gypsies and persecuted all over Europe for centuries), homosexuals, etc.
The scale of the genocide and the systematic nature of it is what makes it one of the greatest tragedies of our time. It is a tragedy that must be remembered, commemorated and learnt from. The message of “Never again” that is a favourite refrain of Jews – especially survivors of the attempted genocide and their families – must become a driving force in international politics. Never again to genocide, never again to holocaust, never again to ethnic cleansing, never again to the driving of people out of their homes and the creation of refugee populations, never again to the attempt to wipe out entire groups of people on the basis of their ethnicity, “race” (a fallacious concept in itself but one which is used to delineate people nevertheless), class, sexual orientation, religion…
Of course, the “Never again” call and commitment has not seized all people around the world. Hence we have seen or continue to see the genocide in Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (see http://electronicintifada.net or http://psc.za.org), among others. History is also witness, of course, to holocausts and genocides before the mid-20th Century: those against native Americans (or First Nations as many prefer to call themselves) and Australian aboriginals being just two examples. Some of these were worse in scale than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany (80 million First Nations people killed, for example).
However, whether there were genocides before or after 1945 does not detract from the enormous tragedy of the Nazi holocaust. Nor should there be any detraction by the fact of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (even if the holocaust in Germany was used as an excuse for this ethnic cleansing). Nor should there be any detraction by the fact that the Nazi holocaust has become an “industry” that is abused by a number of people for various agendas (see Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering).
The fact is that a holocaust took place in Europe in the middle of the 20th Century. The fact is that there was an intention and attempt by the Nazis to destroy the entire Jewish nation. These facts are sufficient for us all, today and forever, to stand on the side of those opposing holocaust, genocide and all forms of injustice. Jews should be the foremost in these struggles – as they have been in many other struggles.
That I am a religious Muslim who takes the Qur’an extremely seriously, forces me to want to have nothing to do with those who – for whatever reason or agenda – seek to deny these facts. And, let me add, it really doesn’t matter to me whether it was 5,999,999 or 6,000,001 Jews that were killed by Hitler and his murderous followers. It was a genocide against Jews (yes, and others too) and that is enough for me to be repulsed by it.
That is why I find the conference that just ended in Iran to be so odious to my sensibilities. It is not just stupid, silly, untactical, not good for the cause of the Palestinian people and insensitive – as many have said. All these are true. But, more importantly, it is a denial of a historical fact and a moral truth. And, being so, it is a psychological rejection of the “Never again” that should be inspiring us. This conference should not have happened. The people that were brought together (and I don’t deny that there might be some good people, even some people who are not holocaust denialists, but that is besides the point) should never have been brought together in this manner. What moral, spiritual, legal or political purpose can be served by bringing together people who insist that the number of Jews murdered was not 6 million and people who are arch-racists?
A friend wrote to me a few days ago about an interview on CNN by Wolf Blitzer (former lobbyist for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)) with David Duke, former head of the Ku Klux Klan who spoke at the Iran conference. She said:
[David Duke] is not just a “former” klansman, he’s still an avowed racist and Americans, especially African Americans, know this. You don’t just wake and decide one morning that you’re not a racist anymore, that takes years of hard work even for soft racists like your average Joe who has beers with his black neighbor and once dated a Latina in high school… Those agreeing with [Duke] are the same people who call us islamofascists. This enemy of my enemy stuff doesn’t work. This conference was counterproductive, reactionary and damaging.
My friend is an African-American Muslim who knows very well what emotions the name of David Duke evokes among African-Americans.
Struggles for justice are important; they are what make us human. Passion against injustice is crucial in order to continue to maintain that humanity. But these struggles themselves must be based on truth, on justice and on moral high ground.
“Stand out firmly for justice,” the Qur’an says, “even as against yourselves…”
4 comments:
December 11, 2006
Holocaust Denial or Smart Move?
By Chris Voidis
Why would a man of obvious intelligence, as President Ahmedinejad of Iran surely is, want to provoke the West by inspiring a conference meant to look at the Holocaust? What is really behind the 'Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision' conference?
Throughout Western media, from the day this conference was announced until today, and for many more days to come I am sure, nowhere is this question asked: Why is this conference being held?
Instead, we see a lot of fingers pointing at Mr. Ahmedinejad's 'obvious' anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Furthermore, it is taken for granted that this is the case, even though it has been made quite clear that his words were misrepresented. Still, to the Western Media, President Ahmedinejad cannot be anything else other than a bloodthirsty anti-Semite who is bent on exterminating the Jews living in Israel.
Yet, no one has bothered to ask why he doesn't start with the 30 000 or so Jews living in Iran. Why doesn't he start, for example, with Moris Motamed, an Iranian Jew who just happens to sit in Iran's Parliament. How did he get to be a member of the Iranian Parliament, anyway? Was he elected? I thought there was no democracy in Iran. Hmmmm.
Could it be that Mr. Ahmedinejad is not interested in picking up where Hitler left off? After all, it wouldn't be all that difficult to kill 30 000 people. Look at Iraq. Unless of course he is afraid that the whole world would spring into action. After all, we all know that the life of one Jew is worth the life of a thousand Muslims. Right? To kill 30 thousand Iranian Jews would mean killing the equivalent of 30 million people. The world would most certainly not allow that. Right?
What if Mr. Ahmedinejad is doing one of the most sane things in the world? What if he is merely calling the West's bluff? Remember a while back, how the Islamic world was up in arms over the publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammed? People in the West pointed to Islamic reaction and said "See, these people are backward. Look at how they react to something as self evident as freedom of speech."
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Ahmedinejad has made a fool of the West by tricking us into behaving in the same way, at least as far words are concerned. But action may follow suit as well. Both Mr. Olmert, the prime minister of Israel and President Bush do not shy away from refering to Mr. Ahmedinejad's 'denial' of the holocaust and his 'wiping Israel off the map' comments, even though he never made them.
Mr. Ahmedinejad managed to pinpoint the one thing that would stir up controversy in the West. Just as it is a sacrilege, for Islam, to depict the prophet, so it is a sacrilege to question the Holocaust in the west. Being an intelligent man, and knowing full well that the Holocaust happened, Mr. Ahmedinejad has not questioned the Holocaust itself. Rather, he questioned the myth that has grown around it and how it's been used by Israel and the West in order to deny the rights of the Palestinians. A smart move by the President of Iran.
I don't think that Mr. Ahmedinejad believes that some new evidence will be brought forth that will help the world see that the Holocaust did not happen. He himself knows that it did. What he wanted to achieve with this conference he did: he got the Western media and governments to overreact and by this to show the Islamic world that the West is untrustworthy and carries a double standard when it comes to Muslims. It can offend them at will, but they will not stand for their 'holy taboos' to be questioned.
Surely the West is now behaving as if a taboo has been broken. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for people in the West to reflect on the necessity of respecting the taboos of other people, and to see that they serve a purpose and are not just there because people are 'backward'. Also, it may help us to question our own taboos. What if the Holocaust has been used as a weapon against the Palestinians? Is that an impossibility? What if a mythology has been built around the death of 6 million Jews? There's no denying, to my mind, that millions of Jews were killed, but how has this fact been used ever since? Has it been used to beat people into submission? Has it been used to intimidate North Americans especially, into an uncritical attitude towards Israel for fear of being called anti-Semites and racists? Perhaps. It may not be such a bad thing for us to think about these things...
Anonymous, your post is truly Orwellian. Painting the Islamic republic of Iran as a multicultural democracy and its would be genocidal leader and a human rights advocate is ridiculous.
The Jewish member of the Iran parliament was not elected by the Iranian people. Each non-Muslim community is allocated a representative in the parliament. He is in every sense a token Jew. To portray him as an independent elected Member of Parliament is laughable. He is hardly free to express his true opinions. He a Dhimmi.
It would be interesting to know Mr Jeenah’s critique of Iran’s ‘democracy’ and its racist treatment of non-Muslim as second class citizens.
Zionist Apologist: Mr Jeenah's critique of Iranian democracy would need to be the subject of an entire posting.
As for your second question, I oppose the second-class status of any citizens of a country by that country's government - whether that second-class status is based on "race", ethnicity, religion, (all 3 of which, incidentally, come together in the case of Israel - just mentioning this since you refer to yourself as a Zionist apologist) sex or any other such reason. By the way, the Iranian state's treatment of non-Muslims is not an issue of "racism". After all, the non-Muslims we are referring to - Bahais, Jews, etc - are Iranian and of Persian descent; there is no "racial" difference between them and the Muslim Iranians.
Mr Jeenah I hope that is not a cop out. I look forward to your post on the Islamic republic of Iran’s discrimination against its non-Muslim minorities.
I was using the term racism loosely to refer to all types of unfair discrimination. But if you want to be nit picky, its worth pointing out that modern genetic evidence has conclusively shown that Iranian Jews are far closer ‘racially’ to other Jews then their fellow Iranians.
But following your logic, Israel’s treatment of its non-Jewish minority is also not racism. For there is no ‘racial’ difference between the majority of Jewish Israelis (who are of Arab decent) and non-Jewish Arab Israelis.
Post a Comment