They met in Teheran
By Israel Shamir
The
Teheran Holocaust Conference caused quite a storm in the world
media. One might ask: what’s so special about that? There are so
many holocaust events and holocaust museums and holocaust
festivals, sometimes attracting presidents and prime ministers
galore, so why did the Teheran (or Tehran) conference draw so
much attention and criticism; why were the White House, Frau
Merkel, the Vatican and the EC willing to take some valuable
time to condemn this small gathering in far-away Iranian
capital?
The difference is that all other gatherings were amen-sayers
accepting the official version provided by Jewish organisations
as the Holy Writ given to Moses on Mt Sinai. The official
version of the Holocaust goes even farther than Writ: you may deny the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection
of Christ, you may besmirch Muhammad, but if you have any doubt that six million of
Jews were executed by Germans in gas chambers within the
framework of a total annihilation project you may find yourself
in a jail in Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland and other
‘free’ countries. The Teheran Conference is the first one ever
to deal critically with the sad events of the World War Two.
One does not have to be a fan of Hitler to approve of the
conference. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The Jews do not hesitate to deny their atrocities.
The Guardian reported that they targeted “the respected
French TV correspondent, Charles Enderlin, whose Palestinian
cameraman filmed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura being shot and
killed, as his father tried to shield him at the start of the
second intifada. Enderlin accused Israeli troops of shooting and
killing the boy. French supporters of Israel went online to
claim the report was a distortion based on faked footage. His
network, France 2, responded with legal action and, last month,
in the first of four individual cases, a French court found the
organiser of a self-styled media watchdog website guilty of
libel.
"Another online target has been the TV footage of bloodshed on a
Gaza beach earlier this year. A Palestinian girl was seen
screaming as she saw the bodies of dead family members killed by
what Palestinians allege was Israeli shellfire. When [Stewart
Purvis, the editor-in-chief of ITN] mentioned the impact of
these pictures at last week's conference, members of the
audience shouted "staged". One person came up to him afterwards
to suggest that the family had somehow died somewhere else and
that their bodies had been moved to the beach to be filmed.
Where, for instance, was all the blood? He pointed out that he
had seen everything that the cameraman had shot and that some
pictures were too gruesome to be shown.”
More importantly, every freedom-of-speech loving liberal should
regret that even important historians are not free to express
their views on the Holocaust issue.
David Irving is in jail, and this week Germar Rudolf was
taken to a German court chained hand and foot after he was
deported from the US for publishing his book doubting the
official Holocaust dogma. Such a taboo clamours to be broken. I
wrote of it at length in 2001, as the first conference scheduled
to take place in Beirut was cancelled by the Lebanese yielding
to severe pressure of the US. Then as now, the revisionists had
much hope tthat their case would finally be heard.
It did not happen. If the conference organisers believed they
could break the taboo and reach millions, they were mistaken.
Though the world media has churned out thousands of news items
connected to the Conference, they were practically identical,
containing local official condemnation and the predictable
Jewish reaction. Practically none of the reports and talks given
in Tehran ever made it to the mass media. The conference
participants were smeared as ‘racist antisemites’ though there
were quite a few Jews, venerable Rabbis in their black hats and
long coats, revolted by the Zionist privatisation of the World
War tragedy.
If anything, the conference proved that the holocaust dogma is a
basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of
mass media described by Noam Chomsky as “the manufacture of
consent Stalin could only dream of … whose discipline, and
uniformity, are really impressive”. This media syndicate is the
enemy of free people everywhere, and it carries on a relentless
war against Iran and other independently-minded nations.
Just one case: a Jewish-owned Canadian paper, The National
Post
claimed that “in a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing
Jews to wear a Star of David insignia, Iran’s parliament has
reportedly passed a law requiring Jews to wear colour-coded
badges”. This was a sheer lie: Iran is home to 30,000 Jews who
are doing fine, and do not plan to emigrate to Israel. They
receive preferential treatment, and nobody forces them to wear a
badge or anything else. The Post withdrew the canard a
few days later, and apologised, but this news item was repeated
ad nauseam in thousands of papers and blogs, while the apology
remained on its sixth page.
Our friend and my countryman Gabriel Ash
wrote in the Dissident Voice:
“The Holocaust is the most effective weapon
in the hands of those bent on manufacturing a “clash of
civilizations.” The “lesson” of the holocaust is good enough to
justify the NATO bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia, the
genocidal U.S. occupation of Iraq, Israel’s massive bombing of
Beirut, a future nuclear war against Iran, etc. The Hollowcaust
is the ideology par excellence of Global Apartheid. The
Hollowcaust acts like a quirky and capricious divinity,
rejecting one comparison here, accepting an equally valid or
invalid one there. It is a partisan divinity, a god that always
blesses ‘us’ and curses ‘them,’ even as it simultaneously
demands to be worshipped by all humanity and in the name of all
humanity.”
So far so good. Ash
understands that “under such circumstances, the denial of the
holocaust is rooted in the desire to pin down the Hollowcaust”.
But then he opens the second front against the conference:
“The most charitable thing that can be said
about the organizers of this pathetic holocaust conference is
that they are fools. The message of Hollowcaust hawkers is only
amplified by such idiocies as the Iranian conference.”
And here we part ways. Iranians had a good
reason for organising the conference. The Holocaust is indeed
well integrated in the prevalent discourse as a justification of
[rich and powerful] minority rights over [oppressed] majority
needs. But its success and its integration show that the mass
media machine is well integrated and concentrated in
philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine
by Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this
captivity of free discourse.
These men can wield their lethal machine with
the ease of a Jedi wielding his sword. They compare Ahmadinejad
to Hitler, and forbid comparison of Israel to the Nazis, they
besmirch Vladimir Putin as a KGB assassin and do not even report
that Israeli courts of law consider assassinations legitimate,
they made a spot on Monica Lewinsky’s dress more important than
the rivers of blood poured by George Bush, they turned
respectable American scholars Mearsheimer and Walt into
skinheads, and now they ferociously attack James Baker for his
disengagement plan. They can bloody well do anything. They are
almost omnipotent.
Our friend James Petras recently published an
impressive book on
Israel’s Power in the US. But Israel’s power is just a mere
reflection of real Jewish power in the West, which is based –
not on Israeli tanks, but on Jewish think-tanks; not on Israeli
nukes, but on Jewish news. Unless the Jewish hold on discourse
is broken, the West will keep sending its sons to follow the
Pied Piper of Hamelin to the streets of Baghdad and to the hills
of Lebanon.
Iranians came to conclusion that there is no
chance to come to agreement with this world-wide Jewish media
syndicate. There is no way to get to peace terms. One has to
fight back, attacking the deepest sacral dogmas of their
control. If this dogma were to collapse, the Jewish hold on
discourse would be broken and the Jewish state would disappear
just as the USSR did, said President Ahmadinejad.
This comparison calls for exegesis: the USSR
was ‘one state’, a state where various peoples lived together as
equals; the Jewish state is essentially ‘two states’, a rich
state of Jews controlling the poor state of natives. Its
dissolution will create ‘one state’ in Palestine; it will
reverse the trend started with the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
Then Iran, and all of the East, will be able to dwell safely
without fear of American and Israeli nukes.
This is the reason why Iran hosted the conference. Nobody – and
I do mean nobody, including British, French, American, German,
Russian leaders – really cares about the victims of a war long
past, Jewish or otherwise; they pay tribute to the Holocaust as
nations pay tribute to their vanquisher. Iran has refused to
pay this tribute; when will the rest of you follow their
courageous example?
|