Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israel/Zionism
See other Israel/Zionism Articles

Title: Haaretz: Questioning holocaust "is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray"
Source: Haaretz
URL Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/686226.html
Published: Feb 23, 2006
Author: Editorial
Post Date: 2006-02-23 12:16:30 by bluegrass
Ping List: *New History*
Keywords: Questioning, tantamount, holocaust
Views: 2651
Comments: 38

A court in Austria this week sentenced British historian David Irving to three years in prison after convicting him of violating the law that forbids denial of the Holocaust.

Irving was convicted by his own admission for two speeches he made in Austria in 1989. He claimed in court that he had changed his opinion since then, and had erred when he stated there had been no gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Several European states and Israel have enacted laws forbidding denial of the Holocaust; Britain and the United States have no such ban.

Irving's sentence raises an argument, which resonates in Israel as well. Some argue that laws forbidding Holocaust denial infringe on the freedom of expression and do nothing to deter the deniers. Others maintain that denying the Holocaust has lessened in recent years, and attribute this, among other things, to the deterring force of the laws forbidding it.

In the West, denial thrives among a lunatic fringe that operates through the Internet. Its effect is marginal, especially because the Holocaust has become a universal code for absolute evil. In many countries it plays a central role in the public, political and moral discourse, and in study programs, museums, films, books and the like. Therefore, it seems that the Holocaust does not need laws forbidding its denial.

In the Muslim world, Holocaust denial serves mainly to nurture hostility toward Israel. Iran's president has jumped on the denial bandwagon and made it his pet theme. His country is planning a world conference of deniers, which is apparently expected to advance Iran's comprehensive war against western culture.

Many Muslims see the denial as a kind of retaliation to the publication of the caricatures against Mohammed. Laws against Holocaust denial in Austria and Israel will deter neither the Iranians nor the Arabs.

Holocaust denial has been prevalent in the Arab states for years. This trend is worrisome, because it is impossible to understand Israel without understanding the Holocaust's central place in creating Israeli identity. And without understanding one's enemy, one cannot make peace with him. Therefore, Arabs who refuse to partake of the denial should be encouraged. These include several prominent Palestinian intellectuals, who even acted a few years ago to cancel a deniers conference planned in Beirut.

Denying the Holocaust should be outlawed because it is a type of racial, anti-Semitic incitement. Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray. Anyone who says that is depriving the Jews of their main argument in their demand that the world protect them, and is abandoning them to their foes.

Denial harms not only Jews. The Holocaust heritage sets a benchmark for universal humane values, and its denial weakens its validity, and legitimizes racism and violations of human rights, which require constant bolstering.

From this point of view, Holocaust denial is a crime against humanity, and freedom of expression should not apply to it.


Poster Comment:

"Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray. Anyone who says that is depriving the Jews of their main argument in their demand that the world protect them, and is abandoning them to their foes."

The chutzpah grows by the day. They're their own worst enemy.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Zoroaster, Jethro Tull, Rickyj, Elliott Jackalope, wbales, Zipporah, robin, Bub, Diana, JRadcliffe, Arete, Eoghan, PatrickHenry, wacsog, HOUNDDAWG, Brian S, Kamala, Horse, Esso, Dakmar, Hmmmmm, mehitable, Yertle Turtle, Grumble Jones, christine, Anthem (#0)

"Denying the Holocaust should be outlawed because it is a type of racial, anti-Semitic incitement. Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray. Anyone who says that is depriving the Jews of their main argument in their demand that the world protect them, and is abandoning them to their foes.

Denial harms not only Jews. The Holocaust heritage sets a benchmark for universal humane values, and its denial weakens its validity, and legitimizes racism and violations of human rights, which require constant bolstering.

From this point of view, Holocaust denial is a crime against humanity, and freedom of expression should not apply to it."

I wonder if this belief is shared by any Jewish members of Congress or other Tribalists that have the means to deprive Americans of their God-given First Amendment rights?

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   12:25:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: bluegrass (#0)

From this point of view, Holocaust denial is a crime against humanity, and freedom of expression should not apply to it.

You got it all wrong, bagel eater.

Free speech denial is the crime against humanity.

Splitends  posted on  2006-02-23   12:28:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: bluegrass (#1)

Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray.

Gee, I never thought of that. What does it mean if I claim the "truss failure pancaking" of the Twin Towers "did not happen"---is that tantamount to saying the Jews have led America astray? Why don't you just give us a goddam script of what we can and can't say so we don't have to worry about slander, persecution, fines and imprisonment for speech that Jews don't want to hear?

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   12:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Splitends (#3)

Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray.

This is what they're really protecting: 60+ years of BS that's made Jewish groups even more influential than they were before the "Holocaust".

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   12:40:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: bluegrass (#0)

Denying the Holocaust should be outlawed because it is a type of racial, anti-Semitic incitement.

Thank you, comrade Stalin.


Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-- Nietzsche

Tauzero  posted on  2006-02-23   12:46:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#3)

What does it mean if I claim the "truss failure pancaking" of the Twin Towers "did not happen"

Think Copernicus, Galileo, ...

"War is a way of shattering to pieces...materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses... too intelligent." ~George Orwell

robin  posted on  2006-02-23   13:03:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tauzero (#5)

Denying the Holocaust should be outlawed because it is a type of racial, anti-Semitic incitement.

Thank you, comrade Stalin.

HAHA!

Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

--Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, "Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States" (12 January 1931)

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   13:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Tauzero (#5)

Another quote attributed to Tovarisch Stalin:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   13:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: bluegrass (#0)

In the West, denial thrives among a lunatic fringe that operates through the Internet.

The same 'lunitic fringe', which has reached more people than they'd like to admit. That same 'lunitic fringe', which has been light years ahead of the MSM with regards to...everything.

Its effect is marginal

They wish.

JRadcliffe  posted on  2006-02-23   13:21:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: bluegrass (#0)

Plenty of people, including Jews and Israelis, deny the Turkish genocide against the Armenians in World War One, without any legal consequences.

If denying the Holocaust is worthy of criminal sanctions, including years in prison, why isn't publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed equally worthy?

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   13:22:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#7)

Actually, any mention of the Holocaust was suppressed in Soviet publications in Stalin's later, more anti-Semitic years. I suspect that by 1950 or so mentioning it, at least in print, could get you sent to the Gulag.

Of course, if it's right to suppress one set of ideas, what's so wrong about suppressing another?

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   13:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: aristeides (#10)

If denying the Holocaust is worthy of criminal sanctions, including years in prison, why isn't publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed equally worthy?

From the editorial: "Holocaust denial is a crime against humanity"

It all depends on one's definition of humanity.

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   13:27:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: bluegrass (#0)

I'm disappointed in the editorial board of Ha'aretz, a publication which is generally on the side of the angels.

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   13:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: JRadcliffe (#9)

Its effect is marginal

They wish.

The "Holocaust" story is toast. This line says it all:

"...depriving the Jews of their main argument in their demand that the world protect them."

If not for the force of law, the fraud that is the "Holocaust" would be laying on the heap with WWI propaganda.

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   13:34:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: aristeides (#13)

Haaretz has always maintained the Hauptstrom version of the "Holocaust".

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   13:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: bluegrass (#0)

The Holocaust heritage sets a benchmark for universal humane values, and its denial weakens its validity, and legitimizes racism and violations of human rights, which require constant bolstering.

Imagine that. Arrogant, Supremacist, ZioNAZI Jews think THEY set the benchmark for humanity.

The lowest, unacceptable range is more like it.

JRadcliffe  posted on  2006-02-23   13:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: aristeides (#11)

Actually, any mention of the Holocaust was suppressed in Soviet publications in Stalin's later, more anti-Semitic years. I suspect that by 1950 or so mentioning it, at least in print, could get you sent to the Gulag.

Arkady Vaksberg wrote a book "Stalin Against the Jews" about ten years ago which opens IIRC with the author ca. 1950 being warned in school not to raise the subject of Lenin's Jewish ancestry (his maternal grandfather). Vaksberg's thesis is that Stalin was an anti-Semite all along, and that his cruel treatment of major "Old Bolsheviks" like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev---all Jewish---and even the Jewish wives of Bolsheviks (Jewesses were "trophy wives" to Bolsheviks and supposedly Stalin had affairs with a number of them in the '30's after he drove his second wife Nadya to suicide) pre-WW II, and his unquestionably anti-Semitic actions after the war prove his case. Still, Stalin kept Jewish Kaganovich as a trusted deputy to the end, even forbade Jewish jokes in front of Lazar when the latter complained about them. Kaganovich outlived practically everybody, even the Soviet Union itself, dying in 1991 at the age of 97.

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   13:43:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: bluegrass (#0)

Claiming the Holocaust did not happen is tantamount to saying that the Jews have led the world astray.

I have never heard anyone deny the holocaust, only the details of the "offical" Jewish version which have changed considerably over the years.

And the author totally wrecks his credibility at the very start by labeling the deniers to be a "Lunatic fringe",. This shows he has no intent of seriously addressing the questioners, as he has already called them "lunatics".

He is a lunatic if he thinks that his article should be taken seriously. The fact that a certain segment of the jews get their yarmulka's in a wad over simply raising some questions is also telling.

tom007  posted on  2006-02-23   13:57:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tom007 (#18)

I have never heard anyone deny the holocaust, only the details of the "offical" Jewish version which have changed considerably over the years.

It seems that even wondering why the story has changed so many times is regarded as "denial" in some circles.

I was raised to belive that there were gas chambers on German soil and that Jews were made into soap. Neither of those fables is pushed by any "Holocaust" historian anymore but they also don't go out of their way to make sure the misconceptions are corrected.

Feneration is slow death of community and culture.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-02-23   14:02:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: tom007 (#18)

I have never heard anyone deny the holocaust, only the details of the "offical" Jewish version which have changed considerably over the years.

Exactly. That's the gist of this controversy: not "denial" of Nazi persecution of the Jews but the effort to strong-arm how that persecution is presented and discussed. The "Holocaust" industry has set itself up as a global "Ministry of Truth," with the power to dictate "newspeak," put discussions down the "memory hole," and declare recalcitrants "unpersons." It has positioned itself as an enemy of freedom, not as a friend of the Jews.

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   14:05:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: bluegrass (#0)

My response to Haaretz was the following.

Regarding your editorial http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/686226.html

"In the West, denial thrives among a lunatic fringe that operates through the Internet."

Absolutely true and I am one of those lunatics. If you doubt me try

http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/

Now that my credentials as a lunatic are established, one of the things I regularly note is you holohuggers&tm; never even try get your act together. It is all purple prose and high melodrama.

"This trend is worrisome, because it is impossible to understand Israel without understanding the Holocaust's central place in creating Israeli identity."

It is considered a primary sin of revisionism and antisemitic to connect the holy holocaust with the existence of Israel in its form and place. Rest assured I will make the most of your correct, antisemitic, revisionist observation.

Also I have been called antisemitic simply for posting articles from Haaretz without comment. Most recently that happened by citing your article on plans to reduce the daily calorie intake of Palestinians. See the sig on this email.

You folks really should get into the outside world and stop imagining what it is like. You really should learn that revisionists are not stereotype you imagine. As a lunatic I know from where I speak. Do not forget to read my lunatic writings on the links so you understand the degree of lunacy with which you deal.

You folks also need to get beyond "never speak ill of thy fellow Republican" because you make it a slam dunk as is. I have lots of political oxen to gore and none are so easy as holohuggers as I only need quote them. While it is easy to quote holohuggers, holohuggers are never able to recite the core of revisionism, the absense of physical for gas chambers and the absense of demographic evidence for the numbers claimed to have bee holocausted.

As a lunatic I noticed just a couple days ago you ran a news article saying "deniers" were at most twenty people centered around the Institute for Historical Review financed by some secret group which sounds like the Illuminati or the Elders of Zion.

So is it twenty and the IHR or an unspecified number and the internet? Which is true? Why do you not know? Why do you not care? All Republicans are correct so never speak ill of thy fellow Republican.

I opt for the internet myself. But I have no problem citing Haaretz as authorative for both positions. I read your website daily and this is the only subject where you post such mutually exclusive material WITHOUT citing the person, Prof. Dina Porat, with whom the editor disagrees. Why the break with tradition and custom?

Do not construe this as a plea to get something right for a change or for consistency. Consider this at best a lame and lunatic attempt at sarcasm.

-- Most Palestinians have gone on a hunger strike. Not voluntary but a hunger strike nevertheless. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3582 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6 http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html

Matt Giwer  posted on  2006-02-23   14:11:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: bluegrass (#0)

What I can't understand about Irving getting bird is that his speeches and interview were given in 1989 and the law that outlawed such comments was introduced in 1992, three years later. This man has gone to jail for breaking the law before the law for his "offence" was even created. What next?

Phantom  posted on  2006-02-23   14:13:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Matt Giwer (#21)

Why the break with tradition and custom?

Ooooh!


Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-- Nietzsche

Tauzero  posted on  2006-02-23   14:32:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Phantom (#22)

According to Wikipedia, "In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as parliamentary supremacy allows the parliament to pass any law it wishes."

Oh, that explains it.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-02-23   14:33:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: bluegrass (#0)

The hell that was visited on the Germans and their neighbors was started, as wars mostly are, not by one particular country--least of all Germany, the chief target of the war--but by a conspiracy of international financial interests. Mugwort - LF

Ground_Control  posted on  2006-02-23   14:39:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#8)

We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

"... as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization which is of course what this is all about."
-- Agent Smith


Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-- Nietzsche

Tauzero  posted on  2006-02-23   14:40:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Phantom (#22)

Interesting, I didn't know that. I think that's what's referred to as an ex post facto law and is expressly forbidden by our Constitution. Or at least it's supposed to be.

When the Holohoax laws come here, we'll see.

There's a kind of freedom in being completely screwed... because you know things can't get any worse. The Freshman (1990)

Esso  posted on  2006-02-23   14:42:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: bluegrass (#0)

Jews have led the world astray

They can't even bring themselves to say "lied."

Brutus  posted on  2006-02-23   15:03:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Esso, Phantom (#27)

I thought the Nazis' making use of ex post facto laws (violations of the principle Germans call nulla poena sine lege) was thought to be one of their worst legal abuses.

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   15:22:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)

According to Wikipedia, the principle of nulla poena sine lege is enshrined in the German Constitution [Grundgesetz].

Does Austria have a constitution?

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   15:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)

Article 103 of the Grundgesetz:

Artikel 103 Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör; Verbot rückwirkender Strafgesetze und der Doppelbestrafung

(1) Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör.

(2) Eine Tat kann nur bestraft werden, wenn die Strafbarkeit gesetzlich bestimmt war, bevor die Tat begangen wurde.

(3) Niemand darf wegen derselben Tat auf Grund der allgemeinen Strafgesetze mehrmals bestraft werden.

Translation of paragraph (2): "An act can only be punished, if it was prohibited by law before the act was committed."

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   15:31:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)

According to nullapoena.de :

The history of the Principle of Legality goes back to Roman law where the prohibition of retroactive punishment existed. For a long time, however, the use of customary law was normal (see Art. 105 of the Peinliche Gerichtsordnung Karls V. of 1532, so-called Carolina), which led to a certain arbitrariness and legal insecurity. During the Englightenment more precise laws were formulated and the Legality Principle was incorporated, for example, in the Austrian penal code of Joseph II. (the so-called Josephina 1787) and the the Bavarian Penal Code of 1813. The latter was drafted by Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach who established the basic principle found in the Latin legal rule "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege".

aristeides  posted on  2006-02-23   15:35:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: bluegrass (#0)

Anyone that denies the holocaust " is depriving the Jews of their main argument in their demand that the world protect them,"

This one quote perfectly displays the Jewish mind set, ie. their demands for special treatment, their arrogance, their hypocricy, their threats, and it is written by Jews themselves. If a non-Jew wrote this they would be called anti- semitic.

If the holocaust is so bloody important to them just why in the hell don't the Jews debate the other side and prove before everyone on earth that the other side is absolutely and totaly wrong?

The holocaust promoters know full well the answer to this question and that is why there will never be a grand debate.

The subjects of the non-stop propaganda have yet to figure it out, however there are indications that this might not be the case for much longer. They might just start asking about the reasons that writers are now being thrown into prison, why the Jews demand that the world protect them, amd why there are special rules on free speech on only one topic.

The historical record of the Jews repeats, they work their way into a society, they start to dominate the society, they become arrogant and demanding of special treatment from the society, they get kicked out.

wacsog10  posted on  2006-02-23   15:44:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: aristeides (#31)

Verbot rückwirkender Strafgesetze

I'd translate this as "prohibition of ex post facto penal laws." If the Austrian "Gayssot-clone" law was passed after 1989 (and I'm almost certain it was, since the Gayssot Law was passed in 1990), it violates this principle.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Austria's Constitution---I couldn't find references to ex post facto prohibition in it. It may be that the Austrian authorities consider Irving's statements a violation of the Allied "de-Nazification" measures that according to what I understand have been continuously in effect in Germany and Austria since 1946.

You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-02-23   15:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: bluegrass (#1)

The Sanhedrin struts its stuff...potential cartoon winner?

Iran leader faces Holocaust case

International case

"I'm awaiting a response about whether they will file charges but I don't know how long it will take," Mr Shahar told the Reuters news agency.

"It doesn't take days but several months."

“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"

Eoghan  posted on  2006-02-23   18:17:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: aristeides, christine (#32)

Wow, that does change things, doesn't it?

Excellent info and thank you.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-02-23   23:20:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: HOUNDDAWG, aristeides, Peetie Wheatstraw, bluegrass, ALL (#36)

Excellent info and thank you.

my sentiments too.

christine  posted on  2006-02-24   0:59:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: bluegrass (#1)

"Denying the Holocaust should be outlawed because it is a type of racial, anti-Semitic incitement."

First of all "Jews" aren't a race they are a cult. Second of all, this statement of his will do more to incite hatered of the "Jews" than a skin head claiming the holocaust never happened ever will.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2006-02-24   21:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest