Nick Amies | www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.
Germany Condemns Proposed Iranian Holocaust Conference
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth"
The Iranian government's announcement that it plans to hold a conference on the Holocaust with notorious deniers as guests has caused outrage in Germany.
The Iranian government announced last weekend that it is planning a conference on the Holocaust and intends to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler, the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir and the historian David Irving -- all of whom are Holocaust deniers -- as guest speakers.
While there was some debate among western officials immediately after the announcement was made as to whether the conference would actually take place or that it was intended to provoke, politicians, especially in Germany, were up in arms at the idea of such a conference.
"This is international anti-Semitism at work," said Gert Weisskirchen, the foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. His parliamentary colleague, Left Party member Norman Paech, added that the conference was part of an on-going "strategy of provocation" being employed by the Iranian government.
Werner Hoyer from the free-market liberal Free Democratic Party told Der Spiegel that the idea of the conference was "untenable" and that such a meeting of Holocaust skeptics at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions was a "dangerous spark in the powder keg."
[...]
Green party chief Reinhard Bütikofer said that the planned conference was further evidence that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was pursuing an "unrestrained policy of anti-Semitic indoctrination" in Iran. President Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth" and has questioned the right of Israel to exist.
Bütikofer said Ahmadinejad had used public statements questioning the legitimacy of the Holocaust to mobilize Iranian fundamentalists. This will lead, he said, to "the international isolation of the Iranian regime." Everybody which gets involved in anti-Semitism or racism soils its own culture and nation, he added. "This also applies to Iran."
Weisskirchen meanwhile cautioned western leaders not to be sucked into a further row with Iran as the so-called "Holocaust experts" could not be taken seriously. [...]
"Ahmadinejad apparently now tries to give a quasi-scientific meaning to his rhetoric," Weisskirchen said.
As well as condemning the conference, German politicians were quick to point out that any Germans who spoke at the conference would have to accept the legal consequences. Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Germany.
[...]
Gerry Gable, the former editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight and an authority on Irving told DW-WORLD that if Irving escapes prosecution in Austria, he and his fellow speakers will be free to travel to the Middle East to speak with impunity.
"Iran obviously has no law against Holocaust denial and therefore if Irving or anyone else speaks there they will not be punished," Gable said. "Irving cannot be punished in any other country for denying the Holocaust in one with no laws against it."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Germany Condemns Proposed Iranian Holocaust Conference
On German radio's DW World website, there is an article containing comments from various German politicians. Here are some excerpts:
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Iranian Holocaust denial: a new development
A scholar who specializes in Persia/Iran has pointed out to me that Holocaust denial is something entirely new in the panoply of Iranian anti-Zionism. According to him, this is something quite different from anything we have seen before.
Der Spiegel: The Price Lipstadt is paying for calling for Irving's release
Der Spiegel observes that I have paid a "price" for articulating my belief that the Austrians should let him go when he comes to trial in February.
Germany's right-wing, extremist National-Zeitung has quoted me in an article titled "Worldwide Protests against Irving's Arrest."
They have skewered me before. That's not surprising. But to see them citing me as an authoritative voice is quite mind-boggling.
What the National Zeitung, not surprisingly, chooses to ignore is that I have not protested Irving's arrest. After all, he broke the law. I just don't think that the Austrians gain anything by keeping him in jail any longer.
Der Spiegel also notes that prior to leaving for Austria Irving signed 60 blank checks and packed 8 shirts, even though his trip was only scheduled to last two days. This would seem to indicate that Irving was expecting -- and some have said hoping -- to get arrested.
Germany's right-wing, extremist National-Zeitung has quoted me in an article titled "Worldwide Protests against Irving's Arrest."
They have skewered me before. That's not surprising. But to see them citing me as an authoritative voice is quite mind-boggling.
What the National Zeitung, not surprisingly, chooses to ignore is that I have not protested Irving's arrest. After all, he broke the law. I just don't think that the Austrians gain anything by keeping him in jail any longer.
Der Spiegel also notes that prior to leaving for Austria Irving signed 60 blank checks and packed 8 shirts, even though his trip was only scheduled to last two days. This would seem to indicate that Irving was expecting -- and some have said hoping -- to get arrested.
Lipstadt in Seattle and Portland January 22-23
Deborah Lipstadt will be speaking at the University of Washington in Seattle on Sunday afternoon 1/22 at 3 p.m. in Kane Hall. For details contact the Jewish Studies office at the University.
On Monday the 23rd at 7 p.m. she will be at Portland State University in the Columbia Falls Ballroom at University Place. The lecture is sponsored by PSU's Harold Schnitzer Family Program in Judaic Studies and the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland.
On Monday the 23rd at 7 p.m. she will be at Portland State University in the Columbia Falls Ballroom at University Place. The lecture is sponsored by PSU's Harold Schnitzer Family Program in Judaic Studies and the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland.
More on Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran
I have now been contacted by one of the leading papers in Brazil for an interview. Their interest is motivated by the confluence of Irving's forthcoming trial and the conference in Iran.
My assumption is that media interest will only grow with time, particularly as the debate in the west continues: what should be done about Iran's work in the nuclear field.
It's amazing and a bit sobering how all these things fit together.
My assumption is that media interest will only grow with time, particularly as the debate in the west continues: what should be done about Iran's work in the nuclear field.
It's amazing and a bit sobering how all these things fit together.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thoughts on the Conference in Iran
I have been asked by journalists and regular folk about the conference in Iran. I am sure it will include the regular cast of characters [Zundel, Irving, Rudolf (who goes by many names), leading deniers from the Arab/Muslim world] etc.
They will, I am sure, raise many of the tried and false arguments about the Holocaust, many of which we demolished in my trial, but that won't stop them.
This will be the biggest thing in the world of Holocaust deniers and other liars. It will give them a stage unlike anything they have had since the trial.
There will be lots of press there because of how this is linked with Iran's rantings about destroying Israel and with its latest very dangerous maneuvers on nuclear energy/ weapons.
Serious thought has to be given how to address this. I only hope the press is well prepared to hear these arguments and to figure out why they are all false. It's a big hope....
They will, I am sure, raise many of the tried and false arguments about the Holocaust, many of which we demolished in my trial, but that won't stop them.
This will be the biggest thing in the world of Holocaust deniers and other liars. It will give them a stage unlike anything they have had since the trial.
There will be lots of press there because of how this is linked with Iran's rantings about destroying Israel and with its latest very dangerous maneuvers on nuclear energy/ weapons.
Serious thought has to be given how to address this. I only hope the press is well prepared to hear these arguments and to figure out why they are all false. It's a big hope....
Monday, January 16, 2006
Iran to Host Conference on the Holocaust
Jan 15, 10:14 AM EST
Iran Announces Conference on Holocaust
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
Iran Announces Conference on Holocaust
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_HOLOCAUST?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-15-10-14-40TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran, whose president has denied the Holocaust, said Sunday it would hold a conference to examine the scientific evidence concerning Nazi Germany's extermination of 6 million Jews.
Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently provoked global condemnation for saying the Holocaust is a "myth" and calling for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Iran further alarmed Western countries last week by restarting its research at a nuclear facility after a two-year freeze.
"It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
"The Foreign Ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review
its repercussions."
Asefi did not say where or when the conference would be held or who would attend.Earlier this month, the Association of Muslim Journalists, a hard-line group, proposed holding a similar conference.
But Asefi said he was not aware of the association's wishes. He said the conference he announced was planned and supported by the ministry.On Saturday, Ahmadinejad urged the West to be open-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real aspects of the Holocaust.
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., has said he understood Iran was considering a conference to call into question the evidence that the Nazis conducted a mass murder of European Jews during World War Two.
BBC Northern Ireland Interview Available
To listen to my interview with Radio Foyle, BBC Northern Ireland, go to their webpage. The interviewer, Susan McReynolds, introduces me as the person "who stopped David Irving in his tracks."
While I clearly did not do this alone and could not have done it without my legal team [lawyers, historians, experts, paralegals et. al.] and those who supported me [contributors to my defense fund, Emory University etc.], McReynolds' comment is a reflection of how Irving is thought of in much of the world.
Of course, I fully epect that he will be a guest of honor at the forthcoming conference on Holocaust denial in Iran.
While I clearly did not do this alone and could not have done it without my legal team [lawyers, historians, experts, paralegals et. al.] and those who supported me [contributors to my defense fund, Emory University etc.], McReynolds' comment is a reflection of how Irving is thought of in much of the world.
Of course, I fully epect that he will be a guest of honor at the forthcoming conference on Holocaust denial in Iran.
Story on Irving in Der Spiegel
"Der Spiegel" has a major story about Irving in its issue of today. It is available on the following server:
http://sisyphus.ath.cx/Irving-Spiegel_03-2006.pdf
The following is a summary of some of the more important passages, courtesy of Albrecht Kolthoff.
The Spiegel reporter obviously has visited and spoken with Irving in the Vienna prison.
http://sisyphus.ath.cx/Irving-Spiegel_03-2006.pdf
The following is a summary of some of the more important passages, courtesy of Albrecht Kolthoff.
The Spiegel reporter obviously has visited and spoken with Irving in the Vienna prison.
Irving is writing his memoirs in his prison cell, 20 pages each day. Writing his memoirs in prison cells ("in Festungshaft" as the reporter writes, imprisonment in afortress, like Hitler in Landsberg) has a certain tradition, and a grinning Irving is quoted: "Vielleicht sollte ich sie 'Mein Krieg' nennen" ("Perhaps I should call them 'My War'").
His daughter finds it "cool" that her daddy is in prison.
Irving had prepared his two-day visit in Austria very well: he had left 60 blank cheques in London and had packed eight shirts in his baggage. He was always prepared for everything, Irving said.
According to the reporter, Irving knew that there was an arrest warrant for him. In 1989 the then Federal Chancellor Franz Vranitzky himself had threatened to have Irving arrested immediately if he would again appear in Austria. Irving is quoted:
"Ich bin aus einer Offiziersfamilie", knurrt es hinter dem Panzerglas, "wir marschieren in Richtung des anonenfeuers." ("I am from an officer's family", it is growling from behind the bulletproof glass, "we do march in the direction of gunfire".)
He will have sent his famous pin-stripe suit to Vienna for his trial starting on February 20.
Deborah Lipstadt: "Er ist ein größenwahnsinniger Klassentyrann" ("He is a megalomaniacal classroom tyrant").
Irving is quoted speaking about Sir Arthur Harris: "Ich spreche von ihm als Befehlshaber. Wie Dönitz", erklärt er mit leuchtenden Augen. "Wenn man täglich 20 000 junge Menschen in den Tod schicken kann, dann ist man ein großer Befehlshaber." (I speak of him as commander. Like Dönitz", he explains with shining eyes. "If one can send 20,000 young people to death every day he is a great commander.")
Irving is asked why he first declared the faked Hitler diaries as counterfeits and soon after as genuine. He replies: "Das war ein Gag", kommt es wie aus der Pistole geschossen, "so etwas war Entertainment, das hatte alles nichts mit Zeitgeschichte zu tun. Ich wollte sehen, wie die Historiker darauf reagieren." ("That was a gag", he replies like a shot, "that's entertainment, it had nothing to do with contemporanean history. I wanted to see how the historians would react.")
Just three months ago he has moved to a new apartment near Downing Street nd Buckingham Palace, "um das Establishment zu provozieren" ("to provoke the Establishment"). "Es freut mich, jeden Morgen vom Fenster meiner Wohnung aus die vorbeimarschierende Truppe zu ehen" ("I'm glad to see the troops march by every morning from my apartment's window"); the Austrians just were jealous of the British monarchy.
"Nicht seine Bücher, sondern seine Vorträge haben Irving ins Gefängnis gebracht" (Not his books, but his lectures have brought him to prison).
Deborah Lipstadt: "Wenn Sie mir vor ein paar Monaten gesagt hätten, dass ich einmal David Irvings Freilassung fordere", erklärt Irvings schärfste Kontrahentin Deborah Lipstadt am Telefon, "hätte ich Sie für verrückt erklärt." (If you had told me a few months ago that I once would demand Irving's release I would have declared you insane", Irving's sharpest adversary Deborah Lipstadt explains on the phone.)
Irving's lawyer Elmar Kresbach, a counsel experienced with murder amd Mafia cases, is going to assert naivety and new insight for his client, and annonced that Irving wouldn't speak much at the forthcoming trial.
Malte Herwig
SPIEGEL 3/2006, S.152-155
Lipstadt in Sarasota January 17th
DEBORAH LIPSTADT will discuss "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory" at 7 p.m. Tuesday January 17 at Temple Beth Israel, 567 Bay Isles Road, Sarasota. Call 365-4955.
Saturday, January 7, 2006
History on Trial Reviewed in (Washington's) The Weekly Standard
There is a review of History on Trial in this week's issue of The Weekly Standard. The full review is only available to subscribers, but here is an excerpt:
The Standard Reader
Deborah E. Lipstadt's History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving.
1/7/2006 12:05:00 AM, Volume 011, Issue 17
Books in Brief
History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving by Deborah E. Lipstadt (Ecco, 368 pp., $25.95).
Before long the generation of eyewitnesses who survived Hitler's war against the Jews will pass on, thus removing an obstacle to Holocaust deniers. Fortunately, they suffered a setback when Deborah Lipstadt was awarded damages from David Irving in a London courtroom in April 2000. Irving, a prominent World War II historian (at least until the aftermath of the trial) had sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for defamation following the publication of her Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993). In her book, Lipstadt called Irving one of the most dangerous spokesmen of the Holocaust denial movement.
The ensuing trial attracted a great deal of attention, as a judgment for Irving might have emboldened the Holocaust deniers who claim that the genocide of European Jewry was a hoax. Irving, among his other claims, had declared that there were no gas chambers (he once stated that "more people had died in the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz"), nor was there a systematic extermination of 5 to 6 million Jews, and he absolved Hitler of any involvement in the Holocaust.
History on Trial is Lipstadt's riveting account of the trial. [...]
Thursday, January 5, 2006
Lipstadt on BBC-Northern Ireland
I was just contacted by the BBC in Northern Ireland and asked to appear on one of their shows [radio] next week. According to the host with whom I spoke, my comments about denial, free speech, incitement, et. al. have struck a chord.
Stay tuned for time and date. [It's a morning show in Northern Ireland so I may have to get up at 4 a.m. to do it....]
Stay tuned for time and date. [It's a morning show in Northern Ireland so I may have to get up at 4 a.m. to do it....]
From the nephew of Sven Hedin, explorer of Tibet, and friend of Hitler
This note comes from a nephew of Sven Hedin, who was Hitler's friend, close with the Nazi leadership, and an "explorer" of Tibet. [For a moment I had mistakenly confused him with Heinrich Harrer, who was the Dalai Lama's tutor. Hedin was not.]
After reading what he wrote about his family [in bold below], I told him that I understand why he lives in Bali far from his family!
After reading what he wrote about his family [in bold below], I told him that I understand why he lives in Bali far from his family!
Dear Professor Lipstadt,
I read your comments regarding David Irving on the BBC website this morning and I felt compelled to write to express my admiration and thanks ....
Irving and his fellow travelers are sad, pathetic liars who, for whatever twisted reasons, seek to deny one of the greatest tragedies ever to befall Europe, but to lock them up serves no purpose. In your own High Court case, which I followed with great interest, you displayed admirable courage.... I was pleased to read that you are now showing yourself to be magnanimous as well.
Being a great-nephew of the explorer (and friend of Hitler), Sven Hedin, I come from a family which has frequent (and heated) arguments about the 30's and 40's, accountability and denial, and I was therefore particularly interested in your case and work.
Several otherwise sane and lovely members of my family insist to this very day that nobody knew what was going on in Germany, that the Holocaust was at best exaggerated (and possibly invented) and that our own family's friendship with the Nazi leadership was perfectly innocent and harmless.
My oldest aunt, would you believe, still refers to Goring as 'dear uncle Herrmann', so the issues which you discuss are very close to my heart.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful, restrained comments. I myself would possibly have used slightly stronger language, but that would of course only have put more coal on the fire, as it were.
Yours, with admiration and gratitude,
Nils
Bali, Indonesia
Some Very Different Reactions to BBC Interview
My friend [and a person who gallantly assisted me with my research], Jamie McCarthy, who is a free speech absolutist, reminds me that in 1998 he wrote the following about Irving:
Now here's a wierd one which was posted on something called PHXnews.com. The writer claims that I the reason I want Irving released at the time of his trial is because I "fear a demise of the Holohoax.":
And then there was one from Richard in Connecticut:
If he believes in free speech, why is he suing Americans for libel in England? England has the most draconian libel laws in the world.Jamie's comment is on the Holocaust History Project website, a great resource.
Now here's a wierd one which was posted on something called PHXnews.com. The writer claims that I the reason I want Irving released at the time of his trial is because I "fear a demise of the Holohoax.":
Since Mr. Irving's arrest, the mythology of the Zionist religion of the Holocaust has attained unprecedented global exposure. Lipstadt is trying to preserve the dogma and profits of the Holocaust Industry.I don't think this deserves any comment, except for the fact that Irving has gotten a lot more PR as a result of his arrest which lead some to speculate that he had engineered this in order to boost his profile.
And then there was one from Richard in Connecticut:
I think Irving should go home too, and for reasons similar to yours. However, what is the risk that instead of falling into obscurity, he becomes a hero in Iran and lends some kind of credibility to their denial arguments among their constituency, leading to other problems?My response [to be read with the proper intonation]:
A "hero in IRAN"? Sure, he could go on the road with the President of Iran and they could do a "dog and pony show." If he became a hero in Iran I think it would illustrate just how low he has sunk.
He has no credibility in the sane world. So if he becomes a hero in Iran, it will say more about Iran than about him.
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Lipstadt Interviewed on Arutz Sheva (Dec. 21/05)
Prof. Lipstadt was interviewed last month by Tovia Singer on Israel National Radio. You may listen to the interview here [mp3 11.9MB]
BBC Interview Generating Lots of Comment
You will find on Metafilter a interesting set of comments responding to the BBC interview.
A Reaction to the BBC Interview [disagrees with me]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4578534.stm
--
Gary D Chance
Director
Xandor Limited
523 Hurstway Walk
London W11 1WF
044(0)207 229 3389 (Voice and Fax)
Dr Lipstadt is being most gracious and magnanimous by extending good will toward David Irving. However, she ignores the essence of her writings by doing so.
David Irving is a threat because he incites and supports hatred of the most pernicious kind by providing support for neo Nazis with pretend scholarship that can easily mislead many people if it were not for those like Dr Lipstadt's meticulous and painstaking research.
Hate crimes are outlawed in the UK for the most part. That's why we've seen the arrest of BNP types more recently. There is an effort to address hate crimes by the police and other authorities. David Irving represents hate crimes which are the essence of Holocaust denial as I am beginning to comprehend thanks to Deborah Lipstadt's books.
There is not a free speech issue here. Although there is some problem with driving these people underground, it's the same as driving any other criminal underground. It keeps them subdued and establishes a standard for those who support truth and honest disagreement when it comes to hate crimes such as he
represents.
[...]
Dr Lipstadt removes the smokescreen from what these people do and say in her books ...but that is not enough. Their hatred and their incitements need to be seen for what they are and dealt with by democracies who need to protect against those who would deliberately mislead in order to unermine the democratic process.
These Holocaust deniers are the very ones who yell about free speech and then are the first to deny free speech to others who do not agree with them.
--
Gary D Chance
Director
Xandor Limited
523 Hurstway Walk
London W11 1WF
044(0)207 229 3389 (Voice and Fax)
Lipstadt Interview in the BBC: "Irving? Let the Guy Go Home.... and Sink into Obscurity"
The following piece is on BBC.com and has generated a great deal of comment. Many people praise my stance. [A number don't -- but that's ok.]
What I find striking is how many people are completely flummoxed [a wonderful British word meaning completely tzederte or, for those of you whose Yiddish is not up to par, it's a combination of confused and blown away] by the fact that I am not jumping for joy that he is in prison and hoping that the Austrians keep him there and throw away the key.
I wonder if, on some level, they have absorbed the image of me that deniers spread, i.e. a mean vindictive witch??
What I find striking is how many people are completely flummoxed [a wonderful British word meaning completely tzederte or, for those of you whose Yiddish is not up to par, it's a combination of confused and blown away] by the fact that I am not jumping for joy that he is in prison and hoping that the Austrians keep him there and throw away the key.
I wonder if, on some level, they have absorbed the image of me that deniers spread, i.e. a mean vindictive witch??
'Irving? Let the guy go home'
By Brendan O'Neill
David Irving, the infamous British war historian, is today sitting in an Austrian jail, accused of denying the Nazi Holocaust. So why is an American Jewish academic who dramatically crushed Irving in the British courts saying he should be released?
When you ask Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her thoughts on David Irving's forthcoming trial, the very last thing you expect her to say is: "Let the guy go home. He has spent enough time in prison."
Lipstadt, the American Jewish academic who exposes Holocaust deniers is not exactly David Irving's greatest fan.
But five years after she famously defended her own reputation in the High Court, and in doing so shredded Irving's, she is arguing that the Austrian authorities should probably let him go, saying the far-right will find a martyr if he goes to jail.
David Irving, 67, who made his name as a World War II historian, became infamous for suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen.
But in November last year he was arrested in Austria for two speeches he made in 1989, during which he allegedly claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz.
It is a crime in Austria to minimise the atrocities of the Third Reich and the historian faces up to 10 years imprisonment if found guilty. Speaking after the arrest, Irving's lawyer said the historian no longer denies that gas chambers existed in Nazi death camps.
Yet Lipstadt, arguably the best-known warrior against Holocaust denial, believes that the best outcome would be for Irving to be let go.
"I would not want to see him spend more time in jail," she says. "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens."
If there were to be a film of Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving, they would be presented as nothing less than arch enemies, fighting to the last - as they indeed did in the High Court.
Lipstadt has spent years exposing the arguments of Nazi sympathisers. She warns historians must "remain ever vigilant" against those who say the Holocaust was a hoax, "so that the precious tools of our trade and our society - truth and reason - can prevail".
The showdown came in January 2000 when she stood accused of libel for describing Irving in a book as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial"; he accused her of "vandalising" his legitimacy as an historian.
The 32-day trial became a legal debate on the history of the Nazis - and the nature of truth itself.
Mr Justice Gray witheringly described Irving as anti-Semitic, racist and a Holocaust denier who had "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".
Irving had comprehensively lost not just his money, but his reputation. Much to the annoyance of those who have fought against him, Irving is still invited to speak both in Europe and the USA.
And Lipstadt raises questions about both free speech, and the publicity Irving stands to gain at his impending trial. "Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime," she says. "I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."
"I don't find these laws efficacious. I think they turn Holocaust denial into forbidden fruit, and make it more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system.
"We don't have laws against other kinds of spoken craziness. If you're a medical quack and you hurt someone, there's a law against that. "But if you're a medical quack and you stand on the street corner preaching that you have an elixir that cures cancer and saves lives, no one throws you in jail."
Holocaust deniers spread conspiracy theories such as that Anne Frank's Diary was a hoax, and that the gas chambers were built secretly built after the war.
But whether free speech should include the freedom to say such things has been the subject of furious debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Nine European countries, have laws against Holocaust denial - and supporters argue that this is the one issue that crosses the line because it is offensive to both the dead and the survivors.
In the UK, the free speech debate has focused on religious hatred: the government says it will outlaw incitement to hatred of believers. Opponents of the measure, including comic actor Rowan Atkinson, say it's an attack on free speech.
However, in the case of the Holocaust, Lipstadt says she recognises a case for laws in the lands that formed the heart of the Third Reich. "Germany and Austria are not so far past the Third Reich. So I can understand that the swastika symbol, Mein Kampf, Holocaust denial, being a neo-Nazi and all the rest have a certain potency there that they would not have in the United States," she says.
"And Austria is a democracy. If the citizens of Austria were against these laws, they could change them. Austria and Germany are different, but I would not support those laws being instituted elsewhere."
Lipstadt says the reason she is generally opposed to outlawing Holocaust denial is not because she fails to recognise how deeply offensive it is but because such laws tend to turn cranks into martyrs.
"I am not interested in debating with Holocaust deniers," she says. "You wouldn't ask a scientist to debate with someone who thinks the Earth is flat. They are not historians, they are liars. Debating them would be nonsensical.
"But we also should not allow them to become martyrs. Nothing is served by having David Irving in a jail cell, except that he has become an international news issue.
"Let him go home and let him continue talking to six people in a basement.
"Let him fade into obscurity where he belongs."
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
English Arabic Daily Al-Hayat on Arab and Iranian deniers
Hazem Saghiya, a columnist for Al-Hayat, the London Arabic Daily, writes about the Arab and Iranian Leaders Who Deny the Holocaust. His key comment is: "[This] is discussed only in intellectually and educationally retarded milieus."
He seems to recognize the damage this kind of rhetoric does to the Arab/ Palestinian cause.
He attacks Muslim Brotherhood leader Mahdi 'Akef, Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the entire article see MEMRI website. The following are excerpts, in the original English:
He seems to recognize the damage this kind of rhetoric does to the Arab/ Palestinian cause.
He attacks Muslim Brotherhood leader Mahdi 'Akef, Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the entire article see MEMRI website. The following are excerpts, in the original English:
"Mahdi 'Akef has joined Khaled Mash'al, who, in his turn, had joined [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in denying the existence of the Nazi holocaust that targeted the European Jews. The issue is no longer tackled or discussed, except in intellectually and educationally retarded milieus.
[…]
"For the millionth time, the truth must be reiterated: the stance towards the Holocaust is not linked to the stance towards Israel. Those who connect the two are either staunch Zionists who consider that the attitude towards the Hebrew State is automatically the same towards the Holocaust, and vice versa; or Jewish haters who consider that acknowledging the Holocaust is tantamount to supporting Israel, and leave no space for contradicting it.
"Most importantly, the 'culture' of denying the Holocaust - which is, among other things, the outcome of lack of education - has grown to occupy a dominant position in public Arab and Islamic life. Although the issue was about to come to an end and be confined to narrow margins that gather utter fanaticism with utter retardation, the heavy, poisoned Iranian rain blew on us and was welcomed, quite avidly, by the eager Arab deserts.
[...]
The Iranians [together with a member of Palestinian Hamas] are still denying...
MEMRI has posted excerpts from a discussion about the Holocaust on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN), from December 27, 2005. The panel included a representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
These are classic and pretty crude Holocaust denial arguments. The echo many of the arguments David Irving raised in court and which we demonstrated were complete fabrications.
The Iranians don’t seem capable of leaving this issue alone. The only heartening thing is that it demonstrates to the world the depth of both Jew-hatred and irresponsibility of these people.
How can one make peace with people who are so eager to distort history?
*Iranian TV Holocaust Denial: Holocaust Denial on Iranian TV: Crematoria and Gas Chambers Were Used for Hygienic Purposes
Clip No. 982
TO VIEW THIS CLIP
These are classic and pretty crude Holocaust denial arguments. The echo many of the arguments David Irving raised in court and which we demonstrated were complete fabrications.
The Iranians don’t seem capable of leaving this issue alone. The only heartening thing is that it demonstrates to the world the depth of both Jew-hatred and irresponsibility of these people.
How can one make peace with people who are so eager to distort history?
*Iranian TV Holocaust Denial: Holocaust Denial on Iranian TV: Crematoria and Gas Chambers Were Used for Hygienic Purposes
Clip No. 982
Political analyst Hosein Rouyvaran: The number of Jews in the world (before World War II) was about 13 million. After World War II, the number of Jews in the world was over 12 million. The killing of six million Jews in the crematoria is a myth, not a fact, as proven by geography.
Furthermore, as Mr. Abu Jihad has stated, 50 million people were killed in World War II. Why do they focus on the figure of six million, even if we assume this figure is correct?
In addition, during World War II, many massacres were committed against humanity. We have Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the city of Larson in Germany.
Auschwitz, Struthof, Mauthausen and Majdanek…. [were used
to burn the bodies of those who died of typhus or contagious diseases. This means the crematoria were used for hygienic, not political, purposes, and even this was not systematically.
The crematoria... The gas chambers were for disinfecting the clothes and the possessions of the prisoners. This too was done for hygienic reasons.
In any case, the many researchers who studied this issue said that of the several millions who died in the detention facilities, only 150,000 to 250,000 were Jews. This is a perfectly
reasonable figure out of the total number of victims.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP
Friday, December 30, 2005
Limmud UK
Though I usually stick to the topic of Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and other bright matters on this blog, I want to deviate for the moment.
I just returned from an incredible experience at Limmud, the festival of Jewish learning, in Nottingham, UK. I was there two years ago. It was a stupendous experience.
More on this later.
I just returned from an incredible experience at Limmud, the festival of Jewish learning, in Nottingham, UK. I was there two years ago. It was a stupendous experience.
Free Speech and Laws vs. Holocaust Denial [3]
An recent article in the Christian Science Monitor regarding the failure of European intellectuals to support David Irving's right to freedom of speech argued that people were being wrongly "picky" about those they were willing to defend and those they were not. It contrasted the reaction to Irving's situation with that of Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist, who is on trial for having written about the Armenian genocide.
There has been a hew and a cry about Pamuk but not about Irving, who the author acknowledges has views that are quite sleazy.
Yesterday I was interviewed by the author of the article, Brendan O'Neill, who is deputy editor of spiked (www.spiked-online.com). He wanted to know my response to Irving's arrest and to the abrogation of his rights of freedom of speech.
Though my friend and solicitor, Anthony Julius, has responded to all requests about Irving with the comment: "About David Irving I have nothing to say," I did not feel I had that luxury.
I made the following points:
1. I am against laws criminalizing Holocaust denial.
2. I dislike being in favor of censorship and also don't believe that these laws work. Instead they make Holocaust denial "forbidden fruit," and consequently, all the more tempting.
3. None the less, I think that Germany and Austria are in a different situation than other countries. Their history is so terrible and this is all so recent that I fully understand why they would have such laws.
4. I pointed out that Austria's law was against minimization of the crimes of the Third Reich and had been instituted in the late 1940s. It was not, specifically a law against Holocaust denial.
5. I also observed that Austria is a democracy and if its people were opposed to such a law they could vote it out. Is it not a bit conceited on the part of Western intellectuals to impose their views on Austria's voters.
6. While I don't believe you can defeat deniers with these laws, I also don't believe there is any sense in debating with them [something O'Neill seemed to think was the solution].
7. I also pointed out that Irving
What he did can be compared, to my mind, to pissing in the face of the Austrian authorities. They essentially had two choices: either ignore him and acknowledge that their laws are meaningless or enforce the law and arrest him.
This was not a great principled battle about freedom of speech. This was someone testing the system and when he gets caught he crys, "freedom of speech."
I will let you know once his article appears.
There has been a hew and a cry about Pamuk but not about Irving, who the author acknowledges has views that are quite sleazy.
Yesterday I was interviewed by the author of the article, Brendan O'Neill, who is deputy editor of spiked (www.spiked-online.com). He wanted to know my response to Irving's arrest and to the abrogation of his rights of freedom of speech.
Though my friend and solicitor, Anthony Julius, has responded to all requests about Irving with the comment: "About David Irving I have nothing to say," I did not feel I had that luxury.
I made the following points:
1. I am against laws criminalizing Holocaust denial.
2. I dislike being in favor of censorship and also don't believe that these laws work. Instead they make Holocaust denial "forbidden fruit," and consequently, all the more tempting.
3. None the less, I think that Germany and Austria are in a different situation than other countries. Their history is so terrible and this is all so recent that I fully understand why they would have such laws.
4. I pointed out that Austria's law was against minimization of the crimes of the Third Reich and had been instituted in the late 1940s. It was not, specifically a law against Holocaust denial.
5. I also observed that Austria is a democracy and if its people were opposed to such a law they could vote it out. Is it not a bit conceited on the part of Western intellectuals to impose their views on Austria's voters.
6. While I don't believe you can defeat deniers with these laws, I also don't believe there is any sense in debating with them [something O'Neill seemed to think was the solution].
7. I also pointed out that Irving
a)knew there was a warrant for his arrest
b) went to Austria anyway
c) apparently announced the fact that he was coming to Austria [or at the least made no secret about it]. It's hard to sympathize with him.
What he did can be compared, to my mind, to pissing in the face of the Austrian authorities. They essentially had two choices: either ignore him and acknowledge that their laws are meaningless or enforce the law and arrest him.
This was not a great principled battle about freedom of speech. This was someone testing the system and when he gets caught he crys, "freedom of speech."
I will let you know once his article appears.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Lipstadt in Sarasota (Jan. 17/06)
Prof. Lipstadt will be making a presentation on Tuesday, Jan. 17, 7:30 p.m. at Temple Sinai, 4631 S. Lockwood Ridge Road in Sarasota, FL. Those interested in attending are asked to contact Stephanie Emerson at (941) 365-4955.
The Iranians Keep at it
According to the Iranian news agency , an Iranian senior cleric has called the Holocaust a "sheer historic lie" which was devised by Zionists to achieve their nefarious goals. They claim that anyone who denies is imprisoned [a clear reference to David Irving et. al.]
"Assumed massacre of six million Jews in Germany after imposing hard labor against them in concentration camps, known as Holocaust, is a sheer historic lie," said Supreme Leader's representative in Fars Province and Friday Prayer
leader of Shiraz Ayatollah Mohyeddin Ha'eri Shirazi in an address to large groups of Friday prayers worshipers.
[...]
"They have now devised an international law based on which no one is allowed to raise doubts against the authenticity of that fabricated story, and made such practice punishable by imprisonment."
The Latest Iranian Outrage
Iran seems to never stop. This proposal should be met with a chorus of jeers. Better yet every country should inundate Iran with all the books their scholars have ever published on the Holocaust on the condition that they place them in the Iranian National Library.
This is typical Holocaust denial tactics. They are trying to create the "debate." In other words, they are saying, "We are not deniers. We are just interested in the truth."
I think I shall send them the printout of Judge Gray's finding in my trial. Its available on www.hdot.org [click on the left side where it says judgment].
This is typical Holocaust denial tactics. They are trying to create the "debate." In other words, they are saying, "We are not deniers. We are just interested in the truth."
I think I shall send them the printout of Judge Gray's finding in my trial. Its available on www.hdot.org [click on the left side where it says judgment].
Iranian proposal for establishing committee to clarify
Holocaust
Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
12/23/2005
An Iranian official on Friday called for the establishment of a committee to clarify the real extent of the Holocaust.
"(Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad wants European governments to allow Western scholars to publish their research on the Holocaust," Mohammad-Ali
Ramin, head of the Society for defending the rights of Moslem minorities in the West, told Fars. [Iranian news agency][...]
"Ahmadinejad should therefore propose establishment of an international committee for clarifying the real extent of the Holocaust," the official added.
[...]Ramin praised Ahmadinejad for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Iranian Does it Again: TV Discussion on Holocaust Denial
MEMRI has once again reported on an example of Holocaust denial in the Iranian media.
A TV discussion with Iranian political analysts Dr. Hasan Hanizadeh and Dr. Ali-Reza Akbari, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 2 TV on December 20, 2005 denied the existence of crematoria at Auschwitz, and went on to explain in detail how Jewish rabbis in Europe used to kill children and take their blood for use during the Passover holiday.
Hanizadeh works for the Tehran Times and frequently pens anti-American conspiracies, is the author of the book, The History of the Jews.
In a gross abuse of history these two putative scholars not only deny the Holocaust, but cite all sorts of supposed events when Jews were supposedly the persecutors and not the persecuted.
A few excerpts follow:
A TV discussion with Iranian political analysts Dr. Hasan Hanizadeh and Dr. Ali-Reza Akbari, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 2 TV on December 20, 2005 denied the existence of crematoria at Auschwitz, and went on to explain in detail how Jewish rabbis in Europe used to kill children and take their blood for use during the Passover holiday.
Hanizadeh works for the Tehran Times and frequently pens anti-American conspiracies, is the author of the book, The History of the Jews.
In a gross abuse of history these two putative scholars not only deny the Holocaust, but cite all sorts of supposed events when Jews were supposedly the persecutors and not the persecuted.
A few excerpts follow:
Ali-Reza Akbari: "Historians and eye-witnesses, some of whom are still alive... There are still many people who saw with their own eyes what happened 70-80 years ago. These people are alive and are of sound mind. They still possess the analytical abilities they had back then. They are our witnesses, and they deny the existence of crematoria at a place called Auschwitz.
"Perhaps the reason... In my opinion, the people who say that the phenomenon of burning Jews on German soil during the World War II crisis is similar to a holocaust do so as a result of propaganda and due to psychological reasons.
"In any event, a case of burning people has been registered in history, when many human beings were burned because of their beliefs. The people who were burned then were, in fact, Christians. They were burned by the people who ruled Yemen,
who were Jews. This event took place 400 years before the advent of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Since then, the burning of human beings has been termed 'holocaust.'"
[...]
Host: "Were there six million Jews at all at that time, who could have been annihilated in the crematoria?"
Hasan Hanizadeh: "First of all, this figure is greatly exaggerated. The number of Jews in the world does not exceed 12 million. Only now, 57 years later, has it reached this figure. Clearly, at that time, considering the dispersion of the Jews, there could not have been six million Jews in Europe alone. In any event, the Zionist lobby and the Jewish Agency use this issue as a club with which they beat and extort the West.
"Unfortunately, the West has forgotten two horrendous
incidents, carried out by the Jews in 19th-century Europe – in Paris and London, to be precise. In 1883, about 150 French children were murdered in a horrible way in the suburbs of Paris, before the Jewish Passover holiday. Later research
showed that the Jews had killed them and taken their blood. This event caused riots in Paris back then, and the French government found itself under pressure.
"A similar incident took place in London, when many English children were killed by Jewish rabbis. These two incidents still haunt the minds and souls of the Europeans, but due to the growing influence of the Zionist lobby in Europe – or to be precise, the influence of the Jews – these two incidents are, unfortunately, never mentioned."
Monday, December 19, 2005
Iranian President Bans Western Music
Iran bans Western music. If denying the Holocaust did not upset some Iranians, this just might. Yahoo reports:
TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Profile on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
There is an interesting profile in the Sunday Times [London] on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and why his alarming rhetoric should be taken seriously. I will be writing something about this later.
Ahmadinejad’s combustive rhetoric about wiping out Israel, denying the Holocaust and asserting Iran’s inalienable right to nuclear power — a potential cloak for developing nuclear weapons — have triggered alarm bells around the world.
[...]
The international storm of outrage that greeted Ahmadinejad’s comments is quite an achievement for the 49-year-old radical, whose meteoric trajectory from obscurity to become mayor of Tehran culminated in his taking office as president in August.
“He’s a tiny, wiry figure with a gaunt face and small black eyes that don’t seem to change expression,” says a journalist who followed him on the campaign trail. “He goes around in rumpled clothes and is as unsophisticated as he appears. He’s devout but he has no religious credentials.”
Some experts maintain that Ahmadinejad’s invective is solely for domestic consumption. "He’s not doing it to be confrontational," one insists. "He’s only saying what others have said many times before. And he doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks."
However, the president’s utterances leave little room for misunderstanding. On October 26, he said: "Israel must be wiped off the map." On December 8, he elaborated: "Some European countries insist on saying that during the second world war, Hitler burnt millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned ... we don’t accept this claim." Europe should provide a state for "the Zionists", he added.
Last week, he went even further: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religion and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews ... If you have burnt the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel ... why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
[...]
Western leaders are now asking themselves how they misread Ahmadinejad so badly. They had pinned their hopes on the new generation of Iranians who were supposedly chafing under the restrictions of the Islamic republic, counting on a presidential victory by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the 70-year-old former president and so-called pragmatist.
[...]
Even then, the White House thought they could live with the new leader, says Geoffrey Kemp, an analyst at the Nixon Center in Washington. “Ahmadinejad’s first forays into foreign affairs tended to be dismissed as the naive posturing of someone new to the game. But the fact that he keeps repeating the same statements and adding new venom to them has got people rethinking this gentleman.”
New questions continue to emerge about Ahmadinejad’s murky past. Former hostages taken captive at the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held for 444 days have claimed he was one of the ringleaders. Donald Sharer, a retired navy captain, remembered him as “a cruel individual”.
The Austrian authorities are investigating claims that Ahmadinejad took part in assassinations against political opponents, notably the exiled Kurdish leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemou and two of his associates in Vienna in 1989.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Children's TV: Jews are turned into apes and pigs and are annihilated
In another example of "death by a thousand cuts" or the steady escalation of antisemitism, Memri reports on a Children's Special broadcast by Hizbullah Al-Manar TV.
In the broadcast Jews are turned into apes and pigs because they insist on working on the Sabbath day. Then they are annihilated.
The Egyptian filmmaker, Zainab Fouad Zamzamshe, has an MA and PhD. She is among the few animators working in Islamic countries who creates animation films on subjects related to the Islamic history and spiritual values and has so far made over 650 films for children.
Her bio, as posted on the website of an Iranian children's film festival, suggests that she is not a radical extremist but someone who is in the mainstream.
Excerpts from the broadcast appear below. The transcript can be accessed through Memri's website
In the broadcast Jews are turned into apes and pigs because they insist on working on the Sabbath day. Then they are annihilated.
The Egyptian filmmaker, Zainab Fouad Zamzamshe, has an MA and PhD. She is among the few animators working in Islamic countries who creates animation films on subjects related to the Islamic history and spiritual values and has so far made over 650 films for children.
Her bio, as posted on the website of an Iranian children's film festival, suggests that she is not a radical extremist but someone who is in the mainstream.
Excerpts from the broadcast appear below. The transcript can be accessed through Memri's website
Grandfather: "Come on, men, keep building. Tomorrow is the Sabbath and we will not work, as we were commanded by the Lord."
[...]
Pinhas: "Step right up and buy your Sabbath goods. We trade on the day that the Lord once forbade, and get rich."
Shamloun: "Shamloun is inviting you. Check out my merchandise, and don't be afraid of anyone. You won't be punished not from the earth nor from the skies."
Habakkuk: "Step right up. It is me, Habakkuk. I am, as you can see, safe and sound. The only illness that has struck me is wealth. Come here. How nice it is to work on the Sabbath. ..."
[While jumping up and down, Pinhas, Shamloun, Habakkuk, and others in the marketplace turn into apes. The boy and his grandfather open a door in the wall and step to the other side with some other villagers.]
Grandfather: "Look, my child, the young among them have turned into apes, and their elderly have become pigs."
Boy: "They should know that the Lord speaks the truth and punishes severely."
Grandfather: "Praise the Lord, who has saved us. They remained in this condition for three days, and then were annihilated. The wind has cast them into the sea."
[Music plays as the apes and pigs are cast into the sea.]
Narrator: "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.... We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment. We said the them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected.' .... The Lord is quick in retribution, but he is
also oft-forgiving, most Merciful."
Friday, December 16, 2005
Iranian Interior Minister Rewrites Recent History: "Iranian President's Comments were Misunderstood"
Iran's Interior Minister is really trying to rewrite history by his claims that the President's remarks were "misunderstood." The problem for the Interior Minister is that the President called the Holocaust a myth. There is not much to "misunderstand" about that.
What the Interior Minister's remarks do suggest is that Iran is feeling the heat from the world's contempt.
The Houston Chronicle carries the following report.
What the Interior Minister's remarks do suggest is that Iran is feeling the heat from the world's contempt.
The Houston Chronicle carries the following report.
Dec. 16, 2005, 9:03AM
Iranian president 'misunderstood' on
Holocaust
Associated Press
ATHENS, Greece --The Iranian president's widely condemned remarks about Israel and the Holocaust were "misunderstood" by Western governments, Iran's interior minister said
today.
"Actually the case has been misunderstood," Mostafa Pur Mohammadi told The Associated Press on the sidelines of an Athens conference on immigration.
"He wanted to say that if certain people have created troubles for the Jewish community they should bear the expenses, and it is not others who should pay for that."
Thoughts From Panama: What can be done about Iranian President?
I am writing this from Panama City, Panama where I spent about two hours with reporters from major Panamanian newspapers, including the paper which former President Noreiga closed down.
Both reporters wanted to know what's the most efficacious reaction to President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and calls for wiping Israel off the map.
I said that the world's leaders should make it clear that if Iran is going to have at its helm a person who makes these kinds of statements, the rest of the world is going to be terribly leery of dealing with it.
In the final paragraph of History on Trial I mention that some people throw "bombs" which cause great damage while others throw the words which cause the others to throw the bombs. That's the danger of statements such as Ahmadinejad's.
Criticism of Ahmadinejad is coming from a broad range of Iranians who seem to realize that these kinds of statement will do their country no good. As the Washington Post reported:
Both reporters wanted to know what's the most efficacious reaction to President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and calls for wiping Israel off the map.
I said that the world's leaders should make it clear that if Iran is going to have at its helm a person who makes these kinds of statements, the rest of the world is going to be terribly leery of dealing with it.
In the final paragraph of History on Trial I mention that some people throw "bombs" which cause great damage while others throw the words which cause the others to throw the bombs. That's the danger of statements such as Ahmadinejad's.
Criticism of Ahmadinejad is coming from a broad range of Iranians who seem to realize that these kinds of statement will do their country no good. As the Washington Post reported:
[…]
A fundamentalist lawmaker in the national assembly expressed revulsion when neo-Nazis abroad voiced solidarity with Ahmadinejad's suggestion that Israel be "wiped off the map."
[...]
"Their support of Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments is beneath the dignity of the Islamic Republic, and the government should make its position clear about this," said the lawmaker,
Heshmatollah Falahatzadeh, according to an Iranian news service.
"Our officials should realize that there are many facts in the world that we should not pass our judgments on in a way that the world finds fault with.[...]
Diplomats from E.U. countries have been attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran by which it would terminate parts of its nuclear program that could be used to make weapons.
[...]
Iran says that its program is solely to produce electricity. "Ahmadinejad has been making these comments about Israel, and people are now beginning to take a look at their own policies about how they are going to deal with this regime," said a British official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the British government's media policy.
"The kind of statements that are coming from Tehran will give everyone pause for thought," the official said.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Iranian Parliamentary President's Call: Some Thoughts
My general inclination is to take a very cautious approach to statements such as those made by the Iranian Parliamentary President. They are so off the wall, that I treat them with a bit of contempt.
I also react against a lot of people in the Jewish community who tend to cry "the sky is falling" more often than I think is accurate or efficacious.
However, I am finding this steady drumbeat of claims about the Holocaust and this call for an "investigation" disturbing. It suggests death by a 1000 cuts.
One last thought: When David Irving gets out of Austrian jail [my guess is that he will get off with time served -- a wise move on the Austrians part], he will probably be welcomed as a hero in Iran.
I also react against a lot of people in the Jewish community who tend to cry "the sky is falling" more often than I think is accurate or efficacious.
However, I am finding this steady drumbeat of claims about the Holocaust and this call for an "investigation" disturbing. It suggests death by a 1000 cuts.
One last thought: When David Irving gets out of Austrian jail [my guess is that he will get off with time served -- a wise move on the Austrians part], he will probably be welcomed as a hero in Iran.
Iranian Parliamentary President calls for investigation of the Holocaust
Two more news items about Iran's stance on the Holocaust. The piece
published by the Austrian Kurier website is based on news items by APA and Reuters and is followed by translation by Albrecht Kolthoff. I have highlighted the crucial sentence.
published by the Austrian Kurier website is based on news items by APA and Reuters and is followed by translation by Albrecht Kolthoff. I have highlighted the crucial sentence.
Iran fordert Holocaust-Untersuchung
Teheran - Der iranische Parlamentspräsident Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel hat eine Untersuchung zum Holocaust gefordert.
Er reagierte damit auf massive internationale Kritik an Äußerungen von Präsident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, der in der vergangenen Woche den Holocaust geleugnet und vorgeschlagen hatte, Israel nach Europa zu verlegen.
Haddad-Adel warf den Europäern am Dienstag vor, eine erartige Untersuchung zu verhindern. "Wir glauben, dass die Hindernisse, die die Europäer einer Untersuchung in den Weg legen, Zweifel an ihrer Ehrlichkeit aufkommen lassen", sagte Haddad-Adel in Moskau. Eine Untersuchung könne alle offenen Fragen klären.
[...]
Artikel vom 13.12.2005 apa, reuters jos
Iran demands Holocaust probe
Tehran - Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel has demanded an examination of the Holocaust.
He reacted to mssive international criticism of statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who in the past week had denied the Holocaust and proposed to move Israel to Europe. Haddad-Adel on Tuesday accused the Europeans of preventing such an examination.
"We believe that the obstacles the Europeans lay in the way of an examination give rise to doubts about their honesty", Haddad-Adel said in Moscow. A probe could clear up all open questions.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Hezbollah symposium calls for Arabs to emulate Hitler and burn Jews
I am not sure which is worse: Iran's Prez's denial or these kind of threats. At some point it becomes really difficult to slough these things off and attribute them to angry rhetoric.
See Memri's special dispatch
See Memri's special dispatch
Iranian Prez: excuses? excuses?
The BBC, in its pretty straight forward coverage of this statement by the Iranian President [it was the lead item on its program "The World"] observed that some people tended to attribute his earlier statements [Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth and the Jews should go back to Europe and Europeans should give them a territory] to his "inexperience" as a President. What does "inexperience" have to do with making statements such as this?
The BBC then went on and sort of saved itself by observing that that excuse now has no credence since this is his third outrageous statement about Jews.
The BBC then went on and sort of saved itself by observing that that excuse now has no credence since this is his third outrageous statement about Jews.
Some Further Thoughts on Iran's President
Some analysts say that he denied the Holocaust as a means of winning the support of a broad swatch of the Iranian people. This is the impact, in great measure, of years of Holocaust denial in the Arab/Muslim world.
Holocaust Denial: Iran's President Does it Again
According to a report in the Guardian, for the second time in two weeks, Iran's president has discussed the Holocaust. The first time he just called for the return of Jews to Europe. Today he went a step further, calling the Holocaust a myth.
It is interesting to note that I heard an interview on NPR this a.m. with a journalist from Iran who was markedly critical of statements such as this and called them harmful to Iran's best interests. It was clear from the interview that he gives absolutely no credence to Ahmanijad's statements.
Iran Leader Escalates Holocaust Rhetoric
Wednesday December 14, 2005 1:16 PM
By ALI HACKBERRY DARWIN
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad escalated his anti-Israeli rhetoric Wednesday, calling the Holocaust a ``myth'' used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
``Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan.
[...]
Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust happened, then they are responsible and should pay the price. "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
[...]
It is interesting to note that I heard an interview on NPR this a.m. with a journalist from Iran who was markedly critical of statements such as this and called them harmful to Iran's best interests. It was clear from the interview that he gives absolutely no credence to Ahmanijad's statements.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Irving's Trial: February 20th
Austrian Press Agency reports that Irving's trial in Vienna will be on
February 20 (one trial day).
According to the report Irving will plead for remorse. Apparently he and
his lawyer have noticed that his tactics of "new insights" after a visit
to Russian archives isn't very convincing when he had uttered his usual
stuff just a short time ago. As he now said in a pre-trial interrogation,
he will use a slightly modified tactic:
"Ihm sei vor wenigen Wochen klar geworden, dass die Existenz von
Gaskammern in Auschwitz erwiesen sei." (He realized a few weeks ago that the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz is proved.)
February 20 (one trial day).
According to the report Irving will plead for remorse. Apparently he and
his lawyer have noticed that his tactics of "new insights" after a visit
to Russian archives isn't very convincing when he had uttered his usual
stuff just a short time ago. As he now said in a pre-trial interrogation,
he will use a slightly modified tactic:
"Ihm sei vor wenigen Wochen klar geworden, dass die Existenz von
Gaskammern in Auschwitz erwiesen sei." (He realized a few weeks ago that the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz is proved.)
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Holocaust Denier Germar Rudolf deported from USA
In the course of the conversation about Irving's arrest, some attention has been given to the deportation from the United States of another Holocaust denier, Germar Rudolf. There is an interesting press release on the website of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]about this deportation.
In short, Rudolf was wanted by Germany for having violated the law against inciting racial hatred. He fled Germany and after hiding out in a number of countries ended up in the United States where he applied for political asylum, claiming political persecution in Germany.
A federal immigration judge denied Rudolf’s asylum claim and ordered him deported in June 2003. Rudolf appealed and lost. He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. All denied Rudolf’s requests .
He became a fugitive, and then, after a period of time, showed up at an Immigration Office to apply for a Green Card on the basis of his having subsequently married an American citizen. [I guess you have to admire his hutzpah.] A quick check of the ICE computers indicated he was a fugitive and he was arrested.
His behavior reminds me of Irving who announced on his website the fact that he was going to Austria where there was a warrant for his arrest to give a speech. Then, he went and was arrested.
I would argue that part of the modus operandi of people such as this is to "spit in the eye" of authorities by breaking the law and then to test the resolve of the governing authorities [whether here in the US or in Austria].
If the authorities do nothing, they herald this as indicating that they are above the law. If the authorities act and arrest them, then they cry "Free speech" or "Victim!."
In short, Rudolf was wanted by Germany for having violated the law against inciting racial hatred. He fled Germany and after hiding out in a number of countries ended up in the United States where he applied for political asylum, claiming political persecution in Germany.
A federal immigration judge denied Rudolf’s asylum claim and ordered him deported in June 2003. Rudolf appealed and lost. He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. All denied Rudolf’s requests .
He became a fugitive, and then, after a period of time, showed up at an Immigration Office to apply for a Green Card on the basis of his having subsequently married an American citizen. [I guess you have to admire his hutzpah.] A quick check of the ICE computers indicated he was a fugitive and he was arrested.
His behavior reminds me of Irving who announced on his website the fact that he was going to Austria where there was a warrant for his arrest to give a speech. Then, he went and was arrested.
I would argue that part of the modus operandi of people such as this is to "spit in the eye" of authorities by breaking the law and then to test the resolve of the governing authorities [whether here in the US or in Austria].
If the authorities do nothing, they herald this as indicating that they are above the law. If the authorities act and arrest them, then they cry "Free speech" or "Victim!."
Free Speech and Laws vs. Holocaust Denial
In certain circles an impassioned discussion about Free Speech and arresting people for Holocaust denial has been fomented by Irving's arrest. I thought I might make the following points:
Irving offered to settle with me shortly before the trial if I agreed to apologize for calling him a denier and agreed to the pulping of all my books. [and if I made a fairly substantial contribution to a charity of his choice]. Pulping of books does not exactly fit into my definition of free speech.
Two other points:
1. The law under which Irving has been charged is that of minimization of crimes of the Third Reich which was passed in 1947 or 1948. It is not a law vs. Holocaust denial per se.
2. Austria is a democracy. What's stopping the Austrian people from repealing that law if they are against it? If not, isn't there something wrong with people from another country with a markedly different history telling them what they should include in their legal system and what they should not? Is that not a certain form of hubris?
Just some thoughts.
Irving offered to settle with me shortly before the trial if I agreed to apologize for calling him a denier and agreed to the pulping of all my books. [and if I made a fairly substantial contribution to a charity of his choice]. Pulping of books does not exactly fit into my definition of free speech.
Two other points:
1. The law under which Irving has been charged is that of minimization of crimes of the Third Reich which was passed in 1947 or 1948. It is not a law vs. Holocaust denial per se.
2. Austria is a democracy. What's stopping the Austrian people from repealing that law if they are against it? If not, isn't there something wrong with people from another country with a markedly different history telling them what they should include in their legal system and what they should not? Is that not a certain form of hubris?
Just some thoughts.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Free Speech and Laws vs. Holocaust Denial
My good friend Harry Mazal recently wrote the following about laws against Holocaust denial. It is right on target.
Each country has a right to enforce their laws even when they are repugnant to us. I'll use a small example. If a person dons a white robe with a peaked hat and two holes in the sheet for the eyes, he can get arrested in this country. (If I recall correctly, KKK members must not cover their faces when demonstrating). On the other hand, if one visits Spain during Holy Week, one
can see hundreds of men wearing almost identical costumes as the KKK, with their faces well covered except for two peepholes. It is legal in Spain, but not in the US.
Perhaps the U.S. has had particular reasons for passing that law; reasons that don't apply in Spain. Spaniards are probably aghast at this interference in a mans' right to wear his clothes or a mask or what-have-you. Before I get jumped on for such a simplistic comparison, please bear in mind that Austria and Germany lived a different reality than did this country. We were not the organizers or perpetrators of a massive campaign of murder and terror, so perhaps we don't recogize their need for atonement and their attempts to prevent a future occurrence.
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
Mel Gibson Redux?
It's hard to believe but, according to the New York Times Mel Gibson, son of Hutton Gibson an acknowledged Holocaust denier, is producing a mini-series on the Holocaust. It's about a Dutch victim who was saved by Christians.
I wonder if the Jewish community will do for this Gibson production what it did for his previous movie: guarantee it a tremendous audience.
I wonder if the Jewish community will do for this Gibson production what it did for his previous movie: guarantee it a tremendous audience.
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Irving to Stand Trial in February
According to the Austrian paper, Der Standard, David Irving will stand trial in February. There will be, the paper predicts, a one day trial sometime between February 20 and 24th. There will be an additional pre-trial hearing to decide whether he must remain in custody.
Saturday, December 3, 2005
A bit of British satire on Irving's arrest
Here's a bit of satire on Irving's arrest and a comment about his having discovered two of his books in the prison library!! It's from Anorak.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Holocaust Denier, Bradley Smith, on David Irving's recanting of his denial of the gas chambers
Bradley Smith, the Holocaust denier who pioneered the idea of placing ads denying the Holocaust in college newspapers and who created the Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust [CODOH], has posted the following comment about David Irving's recanting. Note, that at the end he shares my prediction about what Irving will say once he is out of Austria:
Sunday, November 27, 2005
WILL DAVID IRVING BETRAY HIMSELF, AND US?When I first heard that David Irving had been arrested in Austria on his way to talk to some college students and was being held in jail, I was flabbergasted. I didn’t know what to make of it.
[...]
Irving in jail? It was out of character for him. I had a hard time getting my brain around it. Irving is, in fact, guilty of breaking Austrian law. He did “deny” the Holocaust, to use the usual jargon. His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, tells the Guardian on 26 November: “There are the transcripts of his speeches, there is a newspaper interview that he gave [in 1989]. It’s pretty black and white.”
“But Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, ‘I’ve repented. I’ve no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I’m not a stupid man.’
“He said, ‘I fully accept this, it’s a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it’s useless to dispute it’.”
So the news—and this is only news—is that David Irving is going to recant his “revisionist” views on the Holocaust story. Who would have thought?Irving is an absolutely unique individual. His capacity for work, his genius for organization, the quality of his intellect, his learning, his endless energy, his physical strength, his unwillingness to suffer fools and his easy willingness to offend friends, his daring—I have never met anyone to match him. No one.
At the same time, among we lesser folk, we have watched David Irving make one mistake after another. It began with his unwillingness to take on the Holocaust Industry straight on by setting aside his life-long interest in Hitler’s inside circle and do a real book on Auschwitz, the book he better than anyone else anywhere was capable of producing and promoting.
[...]
Then there was the stupidly conceived libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, where during the trial he was brilliant and wrong-headed and utterly full of himself. Irving’s defeat at that trial was the most serious single blow that revisionism has ever received. Only last week a correspondent reminded me that it was the Lipstadt trial that convinced serious people that, okay, revisionists had taken an interesting run at the Holocaust story, they had failed in full view of the Western world, and there was no reason to worry about Holocaust revisionism any longer.
[...]
If we are to believe his lawyer, who sounds like a practical man, David Irving is going to recant his views with regard to Auschwitz, the gas chambers, and who knows what else? He may. He may not. It would not be beyond him. This is a man for whom there is nothing “beyond.”
But I feel a betrayal in the works. I hesitate to say it, but betrayal is in the air. My hope? That he recants to the Austrian court, is freed, and when he is out in the world again that he stands up in public to declare:“I lied before a corrupt court. There is no honor in telling a corrupt court the truth if you do not enjoy being punished at the hands of corrupt law. The Auschwitz story is crap. I know it, and millions of people all over the Western and Muslim worlds know it. When I said ‘Auschwitz is a sinking ship,’ I was right. I meant it then, and I mean it now.”
Will David Irving betray himself then? And us? Or has David discovered evidence that supports the gas chamber stories and kept it secret from us and everyone else all these years? We are not going to know until he is a free man.
Sympathy for David Irving? A matter of free speech?
There have been a number of articles concerning the supposed violation of Irving's freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
If you have been reading this blog you know my views about laws regarding Holocaust denial, however -- lest you be overcome by sympathy for Irving -- it pays to keep a number of things in mind.
1. Irving knew there was a warrant for his arrest.
2. He knew he was in violation of Austrian law.
3. Is it possible that he wanted to be arrested? [Lots of pr, sympathy, and money]
4. Did he think the laws did not apply to him?
5. Did he care about my freedom of speech [which he tried to curtail by demanding that I pulp my book and apologize to him]?
My good friend Harry Mazal, whose Holocaust History Project is a fantastic contribution to the effort to expose deniers lies and fabrications, came across an article entitled "The Cost of Free Speech," from the Guardian which encapsulates some of the free speech issues involved in my trial. [The article was published a few days after the judgment was issued.]
If you have been reading this blog you know my views about laws regarding Holocaust denial, however -- lest you be overcome by sympathy for Irving -- it pays to keep a number of things in mind.
1. Irving knew there was a warrant for his arrest.
2. He knew he was in violation of Austrian law.
3. Is it possible that he wanted to be arrested? [Lots of pr, sympathy, and money]
4. Did he think the laws did not apply to him?
5. Did he care about my freedom of speech [which he tried to curtail by demanding that I pulp my book and apologize to him]?
My good friend Harry Mazal, whose Holocaust History Project is a fantastic contribution to the effort to expose deniers lies and fabrications, came across an article entitled "The Cost of Free Speech," from the Guardian which encapsulates some of the free speech issues involved in my trial. [The article was published a few days after the judgment was issued.]
David Irving's Reality Check
Irving has long maintained a website on which he posts many things including his correspondence, diaries, and diatribes against the enemies of free speech [in his world this generally means the Jewish community]. A few days ago, friends of mine, who went on the site to see if anyone had posted anything regarding his arrest, discovered that it is now password protected.
I wonder if someone explained to Irving that he cannot maintain he has changed his mind when all the evidence to the contrary is sitting on his web site.
According to his lawyer, he has changed his mind regarding the gas chambers as a result of a visit he made to Moscow where he saw "new" evidence. The problem for Irving is that he was in Moscow in the 1990s. During the trial, which was in 2000, he consistently argued that gas chambers were an impossibility. Since the trial he has repeated his disbelief about gas chambers. As I noted on November 25th, he was vigorously arguing that gas chambers were impossible as late as two months ago.
Maybe, at long last, he has come to realize he cannot have it both ways, i.e. say one thing when it is convenient to do so and something else when it is not convenient to maintain his first position. Or maybe his lawyer has explained to him that he will have a hard time convincing an Austrian court of his newfound position with all this information readily available on his website.
I wonder if someone explained to Irving that he cannot maintain he has changed his mind when all the evidence to the contrary is sitting on his web site.
According to his lawyer, he has changed his mind regarding the gas chambers as a result of a visit he made to Moscow where he saw "new" evidence. The problem for Irving is that he was in Moscow in the 1990s. During the trial, which was in 2000, he consistently argued that gas chambers were an impossibility. Since the trial he has repeated his disbelief about gas chambers. As I noted on November 25th, he was vigorously arguing that gas chambers were impossible as late as two months ago.
Maybe, at long last, he has come to realize he cannot have it both ways, i.e. say one thing when it is convenient to do so and something else when it is not convenient to maintain his first position. Or maybe his lawyer has explained to him that he will have a hard time convincing an Austrian court of his newfound position with all this information readily available on his website.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Antisemitism and Anti-Israelism on Campus
I have been asked by a number of people about the recent testimony by a number of leaders of Jewish organizations regarding antisemitism and anti-Israel attitudes on campus. I recently completed a paper on this topic which will be published by the American Jewish Committee's Koppelman Institute. As soon as it is published I will post a link to it on this site.
In short, while the situation is not great, neither is it as dire as many people would have you believe. In many respects Jewish life on the North American campus is thriving. There are a broad array of Jewish Studies courses available and Hillel is undergoing an unprecedented renaissance.
There certainly are problems regarding the presentation of Israel and Israel's position, but the cry of "oy gevalt" regarding the campus strike me as somewhat out of touch with reality.
In short, while the situation is not great, neither is it as dire as many people would have you believe. In many respects Jewish life on the North American campus is thriving. There are a broad array of Jewish Studies courses available and Hillel is undergoing an unprecedented renaissance.
There certainly are problems regarding the presentation of Israel and Israel's position, but the cry of "oy gevalt" regarding the campus strike me as somewhat out of touch with reality.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Moderated Comments on lipstadt.blogspot.com
Hilary Ostrov will soon set up moderated comments on this blog.
For a short while after I started blogging I had allowed comments to be posted. Soon, however, I realized that deniers were using it to post their arguments. The last thing I wanted my blog to be was a bulletin board for their discredited claims. I, therefore, turned off comments.
However, I miss hearing from serious folks. I look forward to a robust discussion, i.e. discussion with both folks who agree and disagree with me.
Deniers and their ilk should be forewarned: don't waste your time [or mine], your comments won't be posted.
For a short while after I started blogging I had allowed comments to be posted. Soon, however, I realized that deniers were using it to post their arguments. The last thing I wanted my blog to be was a bulletin board for their discredited claims. I, therefore, turned off comments.
However, I miss hearing from serious folks. I look forward to a robust discussion, i.e. discussion with both folks who agree and disagree with me.
Deniers and their ilk should be forewarned: don't waste your time [or mine], your comments won't be posted.
Deborah's Speaking Schedule
Many readers and emailers have asked me to post where I will be speaking so that they can try to attend. And my friends and family are constantly commenting that they don't know where I am. This should help resolve the problem. [I have listed certain "private events" so that people will know if I am in their city on a particular date.]
[Hilary Ostrov will shortly create a link to my Emory webpage on which we will post and continuously update my schedule.]
December 4th: Denver Emory Alumni, private event. For information contact John Ingersoll at fingers@emory.edu
December 4th: Denver Jewish Book Fair at the Denver Jewish Community Center, 7 p.m. For information see Mizel Center .
December 7th: North Palm Beach, Fla. Jewish Federation, 4-6 p.m. City Club of the Palm Beaches 11780 US 1, contact: Randee Schneider, 561-242-6679.
December 8th: Palm Beach, 9:30-12 noon:One Woman’s Voice" - Eissey Theatre on Palm Beach Community College’s Palm Beach Gardens Campus. The program includes an address by Dr. Deborah Lipstadt and a special performance of "The Diary of Anne Frank" by Ballet Florida. Continental breakfast will be served. Contact:Sherri Siskin 561-640-0700, ext. 616 s.siskin@cjepb.org or Jewish Federation of Palm Beach.
December 13: JCC in Manhattan 7:00 PM. Upper West Side, Manhattan; For more information and to register or call 646-505-5708.
December 14: Princeton University, private event.
December 16th: Panama City, Panama, noon, for details contact Yvonne Snaider, 011 507 6616 1886
December 20th: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Wexner Israel Fellows program, private event.
December 23-28th: Limmud, UK, University of Nottingham, UK.
January 7th: Jersey City, Jewish Community Centers of American [JCCA], quarterly board meeting, private event.
January 8-9th: St Mark's School, Dallas, Texas. Most events are closed. For information on any public events contact Roberta Lou Mailer: mailer@smtexas.org , Dennard Visiting Scholars Program,St. Mark's School, (214) 346-8130
January 13th: Manhattan Jewish Experience [MJE], Shabbat dinner, at the Jewish Center, W. 86th st. For reservations and information contact Jeannie Doppelt, 212.787.9533
January 22nd: University of Washington, Seattle. 2:30 p.m. For information contact Rochelle Roseman: roseman@u.washington.edu
January 30th: University of Miami. Details to follow.
[Hilary Ostrov will shortly create a link to my Emory webpage on which we will post and continuously update my schedule.]
December 4th: Denver Emory Alumni, private event. For information contact John Ingersoll at fingers@emory.edu
December 4th: Denver Jewish Book Fair at the Denver Jewish Community Center, 7 p.m. For information see Mizel Center .
December 7th: North Palm Beach, Fla. Jewish Federation, 4-6 p.m. City Club of the Palm Beaches 11780 US 1, contact: Randee Schneider, 561-242-6679.
December 8th: Palm Beach, 9:30-12 noon:One Woman’s Voice" - Eissey Theatre on Palm Beach Community College’s Palm Beach Gardens Campus. The program includes an address by Dr. Deborah Lipstadt and a special performance of "The Diary of Anne Frank" by Ballet Florida. Continental breakfast will be served. Contact:Sherri Siskin 561-640-0700, ext. 616 s.siskin@cjepb.org or Jewish Federation of Palm Beach.
December 13: JCC in Manhattan 7:00 PM. Upper West Side, Manhattan; For more information and to register or call 646-505-5708.
December 14: Princeton University, private event.
December 16th: Panama City, Panama, noon, for details contact Yvonne Snaider, 011 507 6616 1886
December 20th: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Wexner Israel Fellows program, private event.
December 23-28th: Limmud, UK, University of Nottingham, UK.
January 7th: Jersey City, Jewish Community Centers of American [JCCA], quarterly board meeting, private event.
January 8-9th: St Mark's School, Dallas, Texas. Most events are closed. For information on any public events contact Roberta Lou Mailer: mailer@smtexas.org , Dennard Visiting Scholars Program,St. Mark's School, (214) 346-8130
January 13th: Manhattan Jewish Experience [MJE], Shabbat dinner, at the Jewish Center, W. 86th st. For reservations and information contact Jeannie Doppelt, 212.787.9533
January 22nd: University of Washington, Seattle. 2:30 p.m. For information contact Rochelle Roseman: roseman@u.washington.edu
January 30th: University of Miami. Details to follow.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The Holocaust as Normal?
Yesterday I was interviewed by Corriere della Sera, a major Italian newspaper. [Once the article is published I will create a link to it for you Italian reading folks.]
The reporter asked me if I ever thought there would come a time when the Holocaust would be treated as a "normal" event. I told him that I hoped never. Because for something to be considered "normal" it would have had to have happened a number of times.
For example, it is so hard to get people to respond to the current tragedy in the Sudan, even when you tell them it is genocide. I assume it's because genocide seems sort of run-of-the-mill today.....
The reporter asked me if I ever thought there would come a time when the Holocaust would be treated as a "normal" event. I told him that I hoped never. Because for something to be considered "normal" it would have had to have happened a number of times.
For example, it is so hard to get people to respond to the current tragedy in the Sudan, even when you tell them it is genocide. I assume it's because genocide seems sort of run-of-the-mill today.....
Monday, November 28, 2005
David Duke Visits Syria to support Syrian Government and Attack Jews and Israel
According to a Special Dispatch [November 29, 2005, No. 1035] issued by Memri, the organization which translates materials from the Arab and Moslem Middle East which relate to Israel, David Duke, the former KKK leader and an overt Holocaust denier, recently visited Syria to express his support for Bashar al-Assad.
During his visit, Duke, who is also a former U.S. State Representative from Louisiana, spoke at a rally in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, appeared at a Damascus press conference, met with Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmed Hassoun, and gave an interview to speech Duke charged that the U.S. and Syria were both occupied by the Zionists and that the Zionists also occupied "Washington D.C., and New York, and London, and many other capitals.
He charged that "Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views" and declared that "all over the world you see the same pattern of control over the media, the same pattern of influence."
When David Irving visited the US in the 1990s, he spent time with Duke, playing tennis and editing Duke's book, My Awakening, which can only be described as an antisemitic and racist tirade.
During the course of discovery on my trial, we learned from Irving's diaries, that the two men exchanged fund raising lists. Apparently they assumed a person who would support one would want to support the other.
Birds of a feather..........
During his visit, Duke, who is also a former U.S. State Representative from Louisiana, spoke at a rally in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, appeared at a Damascus press conference, met with Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmed Hassoun, and gave an interview to speech Duke charged that the U.S. and Syria were both occupied by the Zionists and that the Zionists also occupied "Washington D.C., and New York, and London, and many other capitals.
He charged that "Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views" and declared that "all over the world you see the same pattern of control over the media, the same pattern of influence."
When David Irving visited the US in the 1990s, he spent time with Duke, playing tennis and editing Duke's book, My Awakening, which can only be described as an antisemitic and racist tirade.
During the course of discovery on my trial, we learned from Irving's diaries, that the two men exchanged fund raising lists. Apparently they assumed a person who would support one would want to support the other.
Birds of a feather..........
Desperate Times call for Desperate Measures or Hitler Diaries Redux?
If, as the Stuttgarter Zeitung speculates [see previous post], Irving wanted to be arrested in order to generate publicity and funding then this would remind me of what he did in 1983 in connection with the Hitler Diaries. As I recount in History on Trial:
In 1983 Der Stern, the German weekly, announced that it had purchased for 3.8 million dollars, 62 previously unknown volumes of “Hitler’s Diaries.” For a brief moment it was the world’s biggest news story. Irving, who had previously purchased documents -- which turned out to be bogus -- from the man who was selling the diaries, was sure they too were bogus.
At a sensational press conference, Stern editors heralded the publication of the diaries and predicted that there would certainly be those who would challenge the diaries, including historians with “no reputation to lose, like David Irving.”
Unbeknownst to Stern, their rival, Bild Zeitung, had snuck Irving into the press conference. A few minutes later, when it was time for questions from the horde of journalists, Irving rushed to the microphone clutching documents which, he said, proved that the diaries were fake.
Dramatically raising them above his head, he demanded that the Stern executives, who had anticipated this as a triumphant moment, to explain how Hitler could have written about the July bomb plot in his diary on the day it happened if, as the film they had just screened demonstrated, his right hand was badly injured. Stern quickly ended the press conference.
Reporters and paparazzi made a beeline for Irving. NBC immediately put him on a live hookup with the Today show, which was then on the air. Irving found this “exhilarating” and marveled at the trail of chaos” he left behind. After spending the rest of the day giving interviews, Irving rose at 3:30 a.m. to appear on ABC’s Nightline. According to his diary he was paid 700 Mark for the appearance. The German publication, Der Spiegel, paid him 20,000 Mark for his story.
Irving was pleased not only by the attention but by the fact that he earned about ,15,000 in three days.
Within a few days, the diaries were becoming yesterday’s news. Suddenly, Irving changed his mind and announced that he now believed the diaries were genuine. Robert Harris, author of Selling Hitler (New York, 1986, p. 359), a study of the diaries incident, believed Irving’s reversal was motivated, in part, by the fact that the diaries “did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust,” thereby supporting the thesis of Hitler’s War.
If Irving was hoping this move would win him publicity, he calculated correctly. The Times (London) immediately put it on its front page. But within a few days the highly respected Bundesarchiv, Germany’s National Archives, concluded, based on careful forensic tests, that the diaries were a forgery and a bad one at that.
When the results were announced Irving quickly composed a press release, accepting the Bundesarchiv’s ruling but stressing that he had been the first person to declare the diaries fakes. “Yes,” a reporter from The Times added when he heard the release, “and the last person to declare them authentic.”
Irving's Arrest: A ploy to solve his financial difficulties?
Did Irving want to be arrested? Some people think, as I suggested in my very first post on this topic [November 18th], that this whole thing may have been contrived for financial and pr motives.
According to a report in the Austrian print magazine, News , the Austrian authorities may well have been told by the student group Irving was going to visit that he was on his way. Why, one has to wonder, would they have done this? They do, after all, sympathize with Irving's views.
A columnist for the "Stuttgarter Zeitung", a daily newspaper from Stuttgart, Germany has a theory. He wonders whether Irving, who had racked up such debts from Irving v. Penguin and Lipstadt, was not courting another trial. A trial in Austria would certainly generate donations from Irving’s sympathizers.
And, I might add, it will also probably prompt donations from those who don’t sympathize with him but see him as the poster child for free speech.
And of course, it would -- as it already has -- generate tremendous publicity.
According to a report in the Austrian print magazine, News , the Austrian authorities may well have been told by the student group Irving was going to visit that he was on his way. Why, one has to wonder, would they have done this? They do, after all, sympathize with Irving's views.
A columnist for the "Stuttgarter Zeitung", a daily newspaper from Stuttgart, Germany has a theory. He wonders whether Irving, who had racked up such debts from Irving v. Penguin and Lipstadt, was not courting another trial. A trial in Austria would certainly generate donations from Irving’s sympathizers.
And, I might add, it will also probably prompt donations from those who don’t sympathize with him but see him as the poster child for free speech.
And of course, it would -- as it already has -- generate tremendous publicity.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
"Holocaust denier Irving turns to friends in US"
The Independent has an interesting article today on Irving's sources of support in the United States:
Holocaust denier Irving turns to friends in US
By Andrew Gumbel
Published: 27 November 2005
David Irving's recent life has made him look more like an outlaw than an historian. Broke, shunned and declared "persona non grata" across half the planet, it's been quite a comedown for the world's most notorious Holocaust denier.
His latest comeuppance has been an episode as shabby as any and may force him to spend years in prison.
[...]
Denying the existence of the Nazi Holocaust is serious business in the country of Hitler's birth, and what was initially intended as a below-the-radar visit to a far-right student group in Vienna has turned into a legal nightmare.
[....]
In the past, Mr Irving railed against any limitation on his activities as an infringement of free speech - not an unreasonable argument, although he has been known to lard it with dark hints about Jewish conspirators being out to get him.
But in Austria, perhaps in recognition of the gravity of the charges he faces, he has taken a different tack. His Viennese lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, insists he has changed his mind about "the views he is so famous for" after an examination of Soviet archives led him to accept the Nazi gas chambers existed.
That line of argument may surprise Mr Irving's white supremacist friends in the United States, more accustomed to his view that "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz". They have extended numerous invitations and organised frequent books sales for him in the past few years.
Among his Stateside sponsors, according to the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center, have been the former Ku Klux Klan leader and one-time candidate for the Louisiana governor's office, David Duke, as well as the leading US neo-Nazi organisation, the National Alliance.
Mr Irving's US friends have been a lifeline since he brought a ruinous libel suit in 2000 against Deborah Lipstadt. She had characterised him as anti-Semitic and racist; the High Court found that the criticism was just and ordered Mr Irving to pay court costs estimated to be about £3 million.
[....]
Even his trips to the States have been less than comfortable. In 2003, a restaurant in rural Idaho chose to cancel an event of his and close down for the day after finding out who he was and what sort of people his local fans might be. This summer he received a rare invitation to address a left-wing group in Alabama, the Atheist Law Center, only to provoke outrage among the membership and, this week, the resignation of the group president, Larry Darby.
Mr Darby described Mr Irving to his membership only as "an expert on World War Two, the Nazi era and the erosion... of free speech". In an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mr Darby made some pointed remarks about Jews and suggested that attacking them was consistent with his general anti-religious worldview. "I think it's easy in this country to speak out on Christianity and even Islam," he said. "I think it's more difficult to speak out on things of a Jewish nature."
Mr Daby now plans to run as a candidate for attorney general of Alabama.
"Irving ordered to pay court costs of about £3 million": A correction, lest you get the wrong impression
Many papers have reported on the fact that Irving was bankrupted by his case against me and was ordered to pay Penguin and me our court costs. The fact is that I never pursued him for my portion of the costs and never received a penny from him.
I explain this all in the final chapter of History on Trial.
I explain this all in the final chapter of History on Trial.
Irving "recants": a prediction
To those of you who have been asking me why he recanted, my guess is that he will plead guilty, claim he is no longer a denier, and tell the court that he has "seen the light." I would not be surprised if he then left Austria, returned to London, and claimed that the only reason he "recanted" was to avoid ending up in an Austrian jail.
Irving plans to plead guilty....
The Guardian's report that Irving was convinced by the 1990s of the existence of gas chambers and believes that "the discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'" raises the question:
If he felt this way in the 1990s, then why was he arguing to the contrary in the High Court in 2000??
He really looks ridiculous to me. The Court Jester for sure....
If he felt this way in the 1990s, then why was he arguing to the contrary in the High Court in 2000??
He really looks ridiculous to me. The Court Jester for sure....
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Irving plans to plead guilty and declare his "remorse" at trial
As noted in an earlier post, after the trial, Irving declared he would continue denying the Holocaust. His lawyer has evidently expanded on the extent of his apparent "change of views". The U.K. Guardian reports:
'Repentant' Irving to plead guilty but must stay in jail
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Saturday November 26, 2005
The Guardian
David Irving, the discredited British historian of the Nazis, will spend Christmas and New Year in a Viennese jail after yesterday being refused bail and being remanded for four weeks pending trial for allegedly lying about the Holocaust.
[...]
At yesterday's custody hearing the magistrate dismissed Mr Irving's lawyer's request for bail on the grounds that he might disappear or that Britain would refuse to extradite him back to Austria for trial because the alleged crime is not an offence in the UK.
[...]
Mr Irving has 10 days to appeal against the indictment but is not likely to lodge an appeal. His strategy is to plead guilty before a jury trial, but to declare his remorse and insist that he has revised his views on the Third Reich in the years since he made the Austrian speeches in 1989. "This might be a big case, but it's not very difficult," his lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the Guardian yesterday. "There are the transcripts of his speeches, there is a newspaper interview that he gave [in 1989]. It's pretty black and white.
"But Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, 'I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man.'
"He said, 'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'."
According to Mr Irving and his lawyer, the 67-year-old historian, who lost a major libel case against Penguin Books and the US historian Deborah Lipstadt in the high court in London five years ago, entered Austria this month via Switzerland and drove to Vienna to meet student radicals renowned for their pro-Nazi views.
[...]
Mr Kresbach argued that his client was elderly, no threat to Austria, and had promised to return for the trial if released on bail of up to €20,000.
"It's not really necessary to keep him here," said Mr Kresbach. "He promised to come back." The magistrate dismissed the argument, however, declaring there was a "flight risk."
Friday, November 25, 2005
Bail denied: court fears Irving might "abscond"
The BBC has reported:
Austrians refuse bail for Irving
Austrian authorities have refused bail for British historian David Irving, who is facing Holocaust denial charges.
Mr Irving, 67, was arrested on 11 November in connection with two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989.
Mr Irving's lawyer has said the historian now no longer denies that gas chambers existed in Nazi death camps.
[...]
A court in Vienna ruled on Friday that Mr Irving must stay in custody as there was a risk he could abscond.
His lawyer Elmar Kresbach had offered to post bail.
[...]
Mr Irving sued US historian Deborah Lipstadt in London in 2000 for labelling him a Holocaust denier. He lost in a comprehensive verdict.
Despite the mortal blow to his reputation in 2000, he remains a showman and may well relish the opportunity to grandstand before a wider audience if put on trial, BBC legal affairs analyst Jon Silverman says.
In his books, Mr Irving has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated.
He has also claimed that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust.
Mr Irving was previously arrested in Austria in 1984.
Irving's About-face: We should not be rejoicing. Irving's followers should be worrying.
People seem to want to know more about Irving's about-face regarding the gas chambers. Many of those who have contacted me think his 180 turn around is really significant. They treat it as a victory of sorts. I don't, not because I am not glad Irving has abandoned this particularly calumny. The fact is that I just don't think what he does is significant.... certainly not to people who care about truth.
First of all, let me point out as late as two months ago Irving's was lauding the Leuchter Report and claiming that it was the report that convinced that gas chambers were a scientific impossibility. Now he says that it was evidence he saw in the Moscow archives which convinced him.
[Check it out on his website in his correspondence with Sara Salzman of Denver on September 21, 2005. He wrote to her again on September 23, 2005. In both cases he left no doubt that he did not believe there were gas chambers. What happened in the interim to cause this sudden volte-face? Seems strange to me that he suddenly discovered this information. Was he even in Moscow and if so what evidence did he find there to cause this great reversal? Did his lawyer "misspeak"? Did he take Irving at his word? Hmm....]
Far more important however, is the fact that what Irving thinks does not seem to me to be important at all. Why should we pay any mind to someone about whom a judge writes that he "perverts" the evidence, that his claims are a "travesty" of the evidence, that his findings are "unreal," and his conclusions not mistakes but "deliberate... distortions."
The people who should be worrying are the deniers and those who have hitched their wagons to David Irving's star. Their world seems to be crashing....
First of all, let me point out as late as two months ago Irving's was lauding the Leuchter Report and claiming that it was the report that convinced that gas chambers were a scientific impossibility. Now he says that it was evidence he saw in the Moscow archives which convinced him.
[Check it out on his website in his correspondence with Sara Salzman of Denver on September 21, 2005. He wrote to her again on September 23, 2005. In both cases he left no doubt that he did not believe there were gas chambers. What happened in the interim to cause this sudden volte-face? Seems strange to me that he suddenly discovered this information. Was he even in Moscow and if so what evidence did he find there to cause this great reversal? Did his lawyer "misspeak"? Did he take Irving at his word? Hmm....]
Far more important however, is the fact that what Irving thinks does not seem to me to be important at all. Why should we pay any mind to someone about whom a judge writes that he "perverts" the evidence, that his claims are a "travesty" of the evidence, that his findings are "unreal," and his conclusions not mistakes but "deliberate... distortions."
The people who should be worrying are the deniers and those who have hitched their wagons to David Irving's star. Their world seems to be crashing....
History on Trial among Amazon's "Best of 2005"
Amazon.com has posted the "Best Books of 2005". In the History category, the list of Top 10 Editors' Picks puts History on Trial at number 4.
Irving's Austrian lawyer: "Austrian politicians share Irving's views"
Yesterday's edition of the Austrian daily "Standard" contains an interview with Irving's attorney. Kresbach. He argued that Irving should be released because there were some Austrian politicians who publicly advocated positions similiar to those advocated by Irving and they were not in jail.
Sad to say, the lawyer seems to have gotten that one right.
Sad to say, the lawyer seems to have gotten that one right.
"Irving now says there were gas chambers": What's going on?
Since the news "broke" today that Irving acknowledges there were gas chambers, I have once again been inundated with questions. People what to know: "What's going on?" It's late and been a long day, so just a few words on this. I guess that his lawyer may well have read the judgment in Irving v. Penguin and Lipstadt. The evidence for gas chambers [and for virtually everything else that he denied] is so overwhelming that for him to continue to stand by his earlier positions -- despite what he said to Jeremy Paxman [see previous post below] on the night of the judgment -- would guarantee that the court would find him guiltly.
He had one of two choices: stand by his position and be found guilty or claim that he has seen the light [or supposedly discovered new evidence] and now knows that he was wrong. Of course, since he misrepresented, distorted, and invented the evidence [check Judge Charles Gray's judgment in the trial], he has always known the truth. He created the lies in the first place. So this new "discovery" on his part is, once again, a lot of bunk.
My guess is that this will enable the Austrian court to slap a fine on him and hustle him out of the country. My second guess is that they will be delighted to do so....
Seems like he is once again validating my choice of titles for the final chapter of History on Trial: "The Court Jester."
He had one of two choices: stand by his position and be found guilty or claim that he has seen the light [or supposedly discovered new evidence] and now knows that he was wrong. Of course, since he misrepresented, distorted, and invented the evidence [check Judge Charles Gray's judgment in the trial], he has always known the truth. He created the lies in the first place. So this new "discovery" on his part is, once again, a lot of bunk.
My guess is that this will enable the Austrian court to slap a fine on him and hustle him out of the country. My second guess is that they will be delighted to do so....
Seems like he is once again validating my choice of titles for the final chapter of History on Trial: "The Court Jester."
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Lawyer claims Irving has 'changed some of his famous views'
As Richard Evans noted in Lying About Hitler (p. 234), shortly after the trial, Irving was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2 TV's Newsnight. When Paxman asked Irving, "Will you stop denying the Holocaust on the basis of this judgment?" Irving baldly replied, "Good Lord, no."
However, news.Scotsman.com reported today:
However, news.Scotsman.com reported today:
Irving acknowledges gas chambers
A lawyer for British historian David Irving said on the eve of a court hearing that Irving admitted past statements could be interpreted as denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers - but now acknowledges they existed.
Prosecutors charged Irving earlier this week under an Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime.
[...]
Irving has changed his views on gas chambers in recent years, his attorney, Elmar Kresbach said.
"He changed some of the views he is so famous for," Kresbach said.
[...]
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
A Challenge to the Austrian Authorities: Will an Irving Trial Simply be a Chance for him to Grandstand?
Many people have expressed concerns that Irving will use this trial to "grandstand" and to promote his Holocaust denial pseudo-theories. While I share some of these fears, there is a way of addressing this problem. It is precisely what my stellar legal team did in my case. In short, preparation, preparation, preparation. Irving tried to showboat [grandstand] but he was not able to because at every turn we cut him off with the facts. We did not rely on fancy legal footwork. We did rely on research who did dogged research. With the facts assembled by a dream team of researchers we were able to show that all of Irving's arguments -- and by extension those of the Holocaust denial movement -- were no more than a lot of bunk.
Now that the Austrians have arrested and appear prepared to bring him to trial, it is their responsibility to properly prepare in order to demonstrate that his claims are bluster and bravado not facts. It is not rocket science. It does call for a serious commitment to the effort.
Now that the Austrians have arrested and appear prepared to bring him to trial, it is their responsibility to properly prepare in order to demonstrate that his claims are bluster and bravado not facts. It is not rocket science. It does call for a serious commitment to the effort.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
BBC World [TV] tonight 10:10 EST
I will be on BBC World [TV] tonight around 10:10 p.m. e.s.t. [NYC] regarding Irving's arrest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
