A Counter-Finkelstein "Holocaust" Lecture

Dear Friends,

Under the sponsorship of Al Saha Cultural Club in Beirut and Samah Idris of
Al Adab Bi-monthly Magazine, a lecture took place on Thursday, December 20,
2001, at 7 PM in Beirut, Lebanon, to tackle the issue of the "Holocaust" and
to provide a counter view to Finkelstein's approach to the subject, in the
aftermath of the latter's recent visit to Beirut.  The lecture was delivered
by Ibrahim Alloush and it dealt with the following topics:

1) what the "Holocaust" and the myth of the gas chambers is.  The
"Holocaust" has three pillars: a) the argument the
there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews in WWII.  In fact, the
Nazi policy was to deport Jews from Germany, an objective
shared with the Zionist movement. b) the argument that five or six
million Jews died as a result of this Nazi policy.  In fact, many
Jews died in WWII in concentration camps, but so did many
others who are non-Jews.  These deaths occured as a result of
starvation and disease. c) the argument that the Jews who died in
WWII were exterminated in gas chambers.  In fact, gas chambers
never existed, and no one was able to prove their existence.
Revisionist historians on the other hand have done a lot of work
proving that there was no such thing as gas chambers.  The
response was their persecution, not their refutation.

2) what the political uses of the "Holocaust" are.  The arguments
above lead to the conclusions that; a) the Jews need a safe haven,
or a homeland of their own, from which they can be safe from the
'anti-semitism' of this world.  This leads to the moral necessity of
"Israel's" existence.  b) the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human
history, which leads to the justification of Zionist policies and
violations of international law, under the pretext that the
uniqueness of Jewish suffering should allow them some leeway
with international law and double standards.  c) the world is
morally responsible for the "Holocaust" and needs to compensate
for that by paying money and giving unlimited support to the
Zionist movement.

3) why we cannot separate the "Holocaust" from its political uses.
Each element of the "Holocaust" above has a specific political
application.  Accepting the "Holocaust" while rejecting its political
applications is like accepting the tree while rejecting its fruit.  For
example, Finkelstein had to deny the uniqueness of the
"Holocaust" in human history to be able to reject Zionist policies,
practices, and double standards.  But because he did not reject
the other aspects of the "Holocaust", like the gas chambers and
the alleged policy of Nazi extermination of Jews in WWII, he did
not reject Zionist settlement in Palestine, or the concept of a safe
haven.  Technically, that is equivalent to saying that one accepts
"Israel" but not its practices.  But is it possible for "Israel" to exist
without its practices?!

4) what is lacking in Finkelstein's approach and why tackling one
element only of the "Holocaust" myth is not enough.  Finkelstein is
allowed a luxury gentiles (non-Jews) are not.  He can criticize
certain aspects of the "Holocaust" without being accused of
'anti-semitism'.  The U.S. government did not interfere to prevent
him from speaking in Beirut like it did in the case of Revisionist
Historians.  Logically, Finkelstein's approach is faulty.  The
argument of the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" is derived from the
three elements mentioned above.   Indeed, if there had been a
Nazi extermination policy against Jews that killed millions of them
in gas chambers, that would have been unprecedented in human
history, and thus unique.  So Finkelstein rejects the uniqueness
argument, the exaggeration of the figures of alleged "Holocaust"
victims, and SOME of the political uses of the "Holocaust".  But
the uniqueness argument derives from the three elements of the
"Holocaust", and one cannot reject the uniqueness argument
without rejecting the other three elements.  Definitely, Finkelstein
has condemned revisionist historians as cranks and crackpots.
Hence, he has rejected the mere discussion of the other elements
of the "Holocaust".  He has taken steps towards rejecting certain
political uses of the "Holocaust", and has gotten in trouble for
tackling such a taboo subject, but not on sound basis.  His is a
reformist criticism of the "Holocaust" at best, which leaves the
basis of the myth untouched.

5) why the U.S. government and ruling elites in the West need the
"Holocaust" to justify their colonial policies in the Arab World.  In
fact, the "Holocaust" is necessary not only for the Zionist
movement, but western governments and ruling elites as well.
These elites need the "Holocaust" to justify their neo-colonial
policies and their unlimited support for "Israel" before their
peoples.  In that sense, the "Holocaust" is a political weapon in the
hands of imperialism, not just the Zionist movement.

In this context, the works of Arthur Butz, Germar, and others were pointed
out.  In fact, on the subject of the gas chambers, whole paragraphs were
read out in Arabic from the section dealing with that topic in Dr.
Faurisson's paper that was to be presented in the cancelled Beirut
conference.  The issue of why Finkelstein was allowed to speak in Beirut
whereas Faurisson and other revisionists were not was also brought up.
Finally, the standing challenge from Dr. Faurisson to prove that any of his
conclusions were incorrect was delivered to the audience.

Following the lecture there was extensive debate as some members of the
audience seemed to have imbibed totally some of the myths of the "Holocaust"
from Dr. Finkelstein during his trip to Beirut.  Some of the audience was
concerned that Finkelstein was being attacked unjustly by the lecturer as he
was fired from his job, subjected to attacks from the Zionist lobby, and was
almost prevented from speaking at the American University of Beirut
[eventually he was allowed to speak, but not in a public lecture, but only
to students and faculty].  Furthermore, many pointed out that the fact that
they listened to Finkelstein doesn't mean that they agree with everything he
says.  However, that doesn't mean we have to accuse him of objectively
serving the interests of the Zionist camp by supporting the myth of the
"Holocaust" as the lecturer claimed, according to some members in the
audience.  Most of the audience, in fact, kept an open mind on the issue of
the gas chambers [that is, they seemed to accept the position of revisionist
historians on the matter], but remained sympathetic to Finkelstein [since
Arab activists generally have a soft spot for anyone who is targetted by the
Zionist lobby, even if they are not one hundred percent].  Finally, some of
them insisted that they were told by Finkelstein that he does NOT know if
the gas chambers are real or not, but that he focuses on the political uses
of the "Holocaust" only.  Some suggested a debate between Finkelstein and
lecturer, to which lecturer responded that he would gladly do it but that it
would be better to prove his case (about the double standard applied to
revisionists but not others) if there was a debate as well IN BEIRUT between
Finkelstein and one well-known revisionist from Europe or North America like
Robert Faurisson or Mark Weber.  The lecturer added that it would be
interesting to see if Finkelstein is willing to discuss the matter with
revisionists in the open, since they have displayed a great willingness to
have the results of their research debated publicly.

                                        Association Against Zionism And Racism