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 Immaculate Conception and 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 is a souse for a goose is souse for a 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 that 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?
You may freely publish the articles of Israel Shamir on the Web, or distribute it by other means. Hardcopy publications should apply for a permission from the author.
Additional information about this document
|Title:||They met in Teheran|
|First posted on CODOH:||Dec. 13, 2006, 6 p.m.|