The *FREE ARAB VOICE*
April 28, 2001
This issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) is dedicated to the necessary
connection between the historical review of the "Holocaust" and the
worldwide struggle against Zionism. Entries in this issue include:
1) 'Revisionist Historians for Arabs: A Preview', by Ibrahim Alloush
2) Dr. Faurisson's Paper for the Cancelled Beirut Conference. One of
the foremost revisionist historians, Robert Faurisson, expounds on the
Arab Muslim strategy of tackling Zionism. In this seminal paper, Dr.
Faurisson argues that Zionists don't care as much if you speak out
against Zionism, or even Judaism, as much as they worry if we speak out
on the following list of topics that we frequently brush aside as
politically uncouth. Read all about it, straight from the forehead of
the teacher of many revisionist historians, including Roger Garaudy.
3) More Sources on Historical Revisionism, and Cancelled Revisionist
Conferences and Forums in Beirut and Amman
4) A Short Interview with Dr. Faurisson on the Agonies and Joys of
Historical Revisionism.
#####################################################
1)
Revisionist Historians for Arabs: A Preview, by Ibrahim Alloush
a) Who are the revisionist historians?
You probably heard through the Zionist-controlled media machine that
revisionist historians are a bunch of anti-semitic Christian
fundamentalists. The truth, however, is that historical revisionism is
NOT an ideology or an ideological current. Among revisionist
historians there are Muslims like Roger Garaudy. There are leftists
like Pierre Guillaume, Garaudy’s publisher who used to issue a
publication called ‘Socialism or Barbarism’, and whose bookstore was
attacked and destroyed by the Zionists repeatedly. There are Jews
among revisionist historians like Henry Lewkowicz,
and there are as well Christians and Christian fundamentalists.
Historical revisionism then is not an ideology, but a position,
supported with facts and meticulous analyses, on a specific historical
event: the ‘Holocaust’. And for taking such a position, many
revisionist historians have been fined, fired from their jobs, socially
ostracized, and even assassinated. In many countries in Western Europe
now, which claim to defend free speech otherwise, expressing views
sympathetic to historical revisionism is punishable by law.
b) Do revisionist historians deny that Jews died in WWII?
Revisionist historians do NOT deny that Jews died in the Second World
War. They say, however, that hundreds of thousands of Jews died along
with the forty five million who perished in that war. The revisionist
historians used hard sciences like physics and chemistry in proving
that the so-called gas chambers were not used to exterminate Jews
systematically. Crematoria, on the other hand, were used to dispose of
the corpses of people from different nationalities (after their deaths)
to circumvent plagues. Of course, a crematorium is something
completely different from a gas chamber. Scientific evidence indicates
that the latter never existed. They proved, for example, that Anne
Frank died of Typhus, like many others who supposedly died in a
systematic campaign by the Nazis. The revisionist historians then
dispute: a) the number of Jews who died in WWII, b) how they died, and
c) the alleged uniqueness of the death of the Jews in human history.
The revisionist historians dispute scientifically the received version
of the ‘Holocaust’, not that Jews died in WWII.
c) Why is this important to Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims?
Many Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, frequently voice frustration at
the indifference with which Western public opinion treats Palestinian
and Arab suffering at the hands of the Zionists. In fact, the Zionists
have succeeded in presenting themselves to Western public opinion as a
people who were so victimized in the ‘Holocaust’, they practically
acquired a free license from the West to do anything to anybody at
anytime with impunity. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims frequently say
when the ‘Holocaust’ is cited in defense of the Zionist movement that
if there had been a ‘Holocaust’, why should they be the ones to pay for
it? After all, nobody, even the Jews, accuses the Arabs of
perpetrating the ‘Holocaust’!
But things are not so simple. The myths of the ‘Holocaust’ are
extremely important for the Zionist movement. For example:
i) the claim that the Jews were systematically exterminated in WWII,
provides the argument for the need for a safe haven for the Jews, i.e.,
the need for “Israel”. This myth basically provides a justification
for the rape of Palestine. As Uri Avenary put it in a recent article,
the Jews are like a man who jumped from a burning building only to land
on somebody’s head, and the Jews landed on the heads of the
Palestinians. He says blithely that the [real] dislocation of a few
hundred thousand Palestinians cannot be compared of course to the
[alleged] extermination of a several million Jews, but the Palestinians
have been the victims of the ‘victims’, and this is why the world won’t
support them as it supported the blacks of South Africa.
ii) the claim that the Jews were exterminated in a way unparalleled in
human history, i.e., the argument of the uniqueness of Jewish deaths,
provides a justification for “Israel” and the Zionist movement to
violate every ethical and legal code in the book, and to persecute
opponents, like the revisionist historians and the Arabs, without any
reprimand, even with sympathy, from the West.
iii) the claim that the countries and the peoples of the West bear a
collective guilt for the alleged ‘Holocaust’ lies at the heart of the
support that Western public opinion furnishes “Israel” and the Zionist
movement. This collective guilt has been a very lucrative source of
financial compensation and moral support, without which “Israel” could
not have been established or sustained.
It is because revisionist historians of different ideological
backgrounds quarrel with all of the claims above that they represent
such a serious threat to the Zionist movement. They basically threaten
the lifeline of Zionism in the West. Thus, their importance as a
crucial ally to the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, should not be
missed by any of us, and by the defenders of truth and justice anywhere
in the world.
On the other hand, there are Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims who were
duped by the supporters of Zionism into thinking that to get the
Palestinian cause accepted in the West, they have to pay homage to the
Zionist version of the ‘Holocaust’, and to participate in the
persecution of revisionist historians. In fact, this is extremely
self-destructive behavior. By accepting the claims of the Zionists
about the ‘Holocaust’, we would be effectively setting the stage for:
i) accepting the rape of Palestine and the legitimacy of the Jewish
invasion of Palestine, by accepting the Zionist narrative on how the
Jews ‘had to’ come to Palestine.
ii) accepting implicitly the motives for Western political, financial,
and moral support for “Israel”, and thus obstructing sincere efforts by
many Arab activists to garner support for the Palestinian cause in the
West.
iii) accepting implicitly part of the motives for the siege on Iraq,
since Iraq is viewed first and foremost as a threat to “Israel”. The
memory of how the ancient Iraqis obliterated the ancient kingdom of
Israel several thousand years ago intertwine with the Hollowcause here
to provide a background of a people under a continuous threat to
maintain support for the siege, more than ten years after the Iraqi
withdrawal from Kuwait. When claims are spread that Iraq represents a
threat to the neighboring countries, who do you think is meant here?
Thus, it is counter-productive for an Arab to gain individual
acceptance in the West by conceding to the Zionist narrative on the
‘Holocaust’. The price of that individual acceptance is the national
rights of the Palestinian Arab people. It’s not worth it!
d) Should we accept everything about revisionist historians?
Of course not! Historical revisionism is a research project underway.
As said earlier, revisionist historians are not one monolithic
prototype. Historical revisionism has obtained some useful results,
but it remains lacking in many points.
For example, upon reading the literature of many revisionist
historians, I noticed that they do not give enough attention to the
role and interest of Western governments in forcibly maintaining the
myths of the ‘Holocaust’. The dilemma can be paraphrased like this: if
we agree that the death of the Jews in WWII is neither unique nor
unparalleled, and if we agree the numbers were highly over exaggerated
and that
gas chambers were not used to exterminate Jews, but
that
crematoria were used to fight diseases emanating from corpses,
we are left with a big question which is WHY DID THE JEWS COME TO PALESTINE THEN?
In fact, it is historically proven that European colonial powers
blocked the immigration of Jews on and off in an attempt to force them
to go to Palestine. Why did they do that?
European colonial powers had an interest in creating an alien
demographic barrier in the midst of the Arab World, in Palestine, as is
evident from the correspondences of Viscount Palmerston, the British
Ambassador in Istanbul, and Lord Rotschield in the first half of the
nineteenth century. That’s when the idea of creating a colonial base
in Palestine first came into being, after Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt
succeeded in uniting the Arab east with Egypt and the Sudan.
The need for that colonial base, i.e., the colonial need for “Israel”,
remains as indispensable today as it was in the first half of the
nineteenth century. Hence, mobilizing public support for “Israel” in
Western democratic societies, and justifying all the financial,
political, and moral support rendered to it, necessitate that Western
public opinion embrace the myths of the ‘Holocaust’ wholeheartedly.
Mind you, this happens NOT because poor Western governments are
manipulated by some Zionist conspiracy, but because Western governments
derive strategic benefits from creating and maintaining a colonial base
that would split the eastern and Western parts of the Arab World and
weaken it.
To attribute all support for “Israel” by Western governments to Zionist
influence is to miss the point behind the dynamics of imperialism,
divide and conquer strategies, and economic exploitation. In fact,
attributing all Western support to “Israel” to Zionist influence there
would set the stage for another political mishap that many Arabs make:
deluding oneself into pandering to neo-colonial policies of Western
governments in the illusion of winning them over against Zionism. The
first political mishap, of course, is that of pandering to Zionists in
the illusion of winning over the West! These are in fact two sides of
the same coin. We cannot afford to miss the symbiotic relationship
between Zionism and imperialism. By getting the Jews to play their
reactionary geopolitical role in Palestine, through “Israel”,
imperialism and Zionist movement have exposed them to serious danger.
That is the real threat the Jews should be aware of. We are not the
threat. We are only a people who will not stop at anything to get
their LAND back.
Ibrahim Alloush
#####################################################
2) Dr. Faurisson's Paper to the Cancelled Revisionist Conference in
Beirut: What Hurts the Zionists More?
Please go to:
http://www.fav.net/faurisson.htm
#####################################################
3)
More Sources on Historical Revisionism, and Cancelled Revisionist
Conferences and Forums in Beirut and Amman
a) For References on the "Holocaust":
The most recent perhaps on this topic is Dissecting the Holocaust
(Theses and Dissertations Press, Alabama/USA 2000), the most important
revisionist work which extensively discusses all important aspects of
the "Holocaust" story.
The most thourough study of Jewish population losses
during World War Two is Walter Sanning's "The
Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry" (I.H.R., 1983).
In 1991, the adherents of the Holocaust story tried to
counter Sanning's book by publishing a work defending
the tradtional six million figure. This book (Wolfgang
Benz, "Dimension des Voelkermords", Munich 1991) has
never been translated into English.
In "Dissecting the Holocaust", Germar Rudolf has
compared the two works and exposed the blantantly
fraudulent methods used by Benz to corroborate the
official figure.
For a no-nonsense analysis of the Anne Frank Diaries, go to:
http://www.heretical.com/supps/bof2.html
The Israeli Holocaust Against the Arabs virtual museum is online at:
http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine.html
To read on the fraud of the six-million figure, please go to:
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/101/english1013.html
http://www.lebensraum.org/english/debate/appfaur1.html
For Jewish population losses in the German sphere of influence during
the World War II (by Jurgen Graf):
http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jgjewstats/jgstattoc.htm
For the website of the Institute of Historical Review in the U.S., go
to:
www.ihr.org
b) For News on the Cancelled Forum in Amman:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/forum220401.htm
http://www.freearabvoice.org/NewDateForForumInAmmanOnRevisionism.htm
http://www.freearabvoice.org/revisionistHistoriansPanelPostponedByGovernmentDecree.htm
http://www.freearabvoice.org/haartzOnJordanianWritersForumInAmman.htm
#####################################################
4)
A Short Interview with Dr. Faurisson on the Joys and Agonies of
Historical Revisionism
Robert FAURISSON
19 January 2001
Answers to Andrea Colombo (of the Italian Libero)
1. I was born on January 25, 1929, in England to a French father and
a Scottish mother. I possess British citizenship together with French.
Married, with three children, I have lived in Vichy since 1957. I used
to teach French, Latin and Greek in
Lycées. Then, as assistant
professor, I taught Modern French Literature at the University of Paris
(Sorbonne). From 1974, at a University in Lyon, I taught Modern French
Literature along with « Analysis of Texts and Documents (Literature,
History, Media) ». Because of my revisionist views, which I had
expressed only outside the University, I was forbidden from lecturing
as of May 1979. My tenure was taken away in 1990 by a sleight of hand on
the part of Lionel Jospin who at the time was Minister of Education and
who is now Prime Minister. Jewish organisations had led numerous
campaigns and exerted pressure so as to get me fired, and they
eventually succeeded.
2. I am apolitical and an atheist. [Please note that Dr. Faurisson
here is dispelling the claim that revisionist historians are all
Christian fundamentalists - FAV].
3. I have been assaulted more than ten times. On 19 September 1989 I
was nearly killed by Jews. A young man saved me but, the next day,
learning my name in the local newspaper, he told the police that he
regretted his intervention. The police ended up concluding that my
three assailants probably belonged to a group of « young Jewish
activists in Paris ». They then dropped their inquiries. I knew that
the three Jews in question had been guided by another Jew in Vichy, who
himself had already assaulted me on 12 July 1987. But I had no time and
no money to pursue the case, and experience had taught me that it would
have been to no avail since in France Jews have the right to do
whatever they want against those believed to be « anti-Semites ». In
such cases the courts usually decide that the Jews have acted « in good
faith » regardless of whether such acts are forbidden by law.
4. In July 1990, Jews like Chief Rabbi René-Samuel Sirat and
Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet, acting in concert with the country’s
principal Jewish organisations, obtained the passage of a special law
against Historical Revisionism. It is commonly called the «
Fabius-Gayssot law » or sometimes « Lex Faurissonia ». Fabius is a Jew
and a Socialist while Gayssot is a Communist. That law forbids one to
express even a doubt about the so-called « Holocaust ». If found guilty
one may be sent to jail for a year, fined up to FFr 300,000 and
sanctioned still otherwise.
5. There is no debate between Revisionists and Exterminationists.
For years and years we have been asking for such a debate. The answer
has been, in P. Vidal-Naquet’s words : « One may debate
on the
Revisionists but not
with the Revisionists ».
6. Our adversaries claim that we are « deniers ». In fact, I have
not denied anything. Galileo Galilei did not « deny » at all. He
affirmed several things, as conclusions of his research. As a
conclusion of my own research undertakings, which were essentially of a
physical or historical nature, I affirmed in 1980 that the alleged
genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged Six
Million victims constituted one and the same historical lie. Whereas,
for his part, Ernst Nolte is definitely not a Revisionist; he is only a
« Retouchiste » as I would say in French, an alterations tailor. He
still claims that he is a true believer in official history and in the
kosher version of World War II history.
7. During the war, many Jews died and many survived. It should be
possible to determine what « many » means in either case but the
archives, especially those of the International Tracing Service in
Arolsen-Waldeck (Germany), are closed to the Revisionists.
8. I happened to find that there were in fact no execution gas
chambers in Auschwitz and that the room which visitors there were shown
had been first a simple mortuary and, later on, an air-raid shelter
but French Justice and legislation decided that I could no longer say
so. So I do not say so anymore because I haven’t enough money for the
heavy fines I would have to pay if I dared. Which is rather strange
since, in 1995, an antirevisionist French historian finally admitted,
without being sued thereafter, that the « gas chamber » visited by
millions of tourists in Auschwitz-I was nothing but a fake « as
demonstrated by Faurisson already at the end of the 70s ». This
historian went so far as to add that a certain lady in charge of the
Auschwitz Museum, whose name he gave, admitted that it was a fake; she
added that telling the truth to the visitors would be « too complicated
» (See Eric Conan, « Auschwitz : la mémoire du mal »,
L’Express, 19-25
janvier 1995, p.68).
9. « Extermination camp » is an expression invented by the Allies.
10. Rudolf Hoess, one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz
camp (not to be confused with Rudolf Hess who landed in May 1941 in
Britain) made quite a few nonsensical confessions, especially to the
British. We knew that it was because he had been tortured. In 1983, a
Jew belonging to the British Field Security Police described how he had
himself tortured Hoess in 1946 and obtained those confessions (See
Rupert Butler,
Legions of Death, London, Arrow Books, 1983, page of
Acknowledgments and p. 234-238). The Jew was proud of having tortured
an « SS ».
11. In concentration camps during the war many Jews as well as
non-Jews died from starvation, disease, sickness and overwork. Even
outside the camps typhus, for example, raged; such was the case in 1943
in Southern Italy. The same thing happened after the war to millions of
Germans deported by the Allies.
12. In order to try and protect life and health, Germans used
different products as ways and means for disinfecting, delousing and
disinfestation. One of the products was known by the « Zyklon B »
trademark. It was invented in 1922. It is still used today although the
name has had to be changed. Basically it is hydrogen cyanide acid
(HCN). It is powerful and dangerous to handle. Only trained personnel
can use it and only whilst taking drastic precautions. The «
exterminator » (this is the right word in English even today for
“vermin destroyer”) may kill himself if he is not extremely careful.
13. Of course HCN can kill human beings. It is used in American
penitentiaries’ gas chambers to execute persons sentenced to death. But
there is a terrible danger for the executioners (that is, the doctor
and his two attendants) who have to enter the gas chamber after the
execution. You cannot enter a place with HCN except with a special gas
mask and only after a long and thorough mechanical ventilation. You may
also be poisoned simply by touching the corpse’s skin. You must not
make any physical effort in a room with full of HCN, even wearing a gas
mask. This is why since 1924 the Americans have had a necessarily
complicated, sophisticated and expensive « gas chamber » with which to
execute only one person. I have never understood, and nobody has
explained to me, how it could have been possible for anyone to enter
one of those fantastic Nazi gas chambers and to work in it, handling
and transporting hundreds or thousands of dead bodies.
14. Ovens were used, as is today the case, to incinerate dead bodies.
In every place where there has been grave danger of epidemics such
crematoria have been needed. They were essential in Auschwitz where it
was impossible to bury bodies because of the high groundwater level.
15. Schindler’s List is a fictional account based on a novel that was
formally conceived as such. The true story was very different. In his
cinematic fiction Spielberg failed to show us a Nazi gas chamber.
16. Many people think they have been shown a Nazi gas chamber either
while visiting a camp, or in a film, or in a photo, or in a book. In
fact, they have never been shown such a chemical slaughterhouse as a
complete building with its machinery, its procedure, etc. There are
sometimes models to be found in certain museums. They are purely
fictitious. Such « gas chambers » would never have functioned. This is
why in the museums they prefer showing you hair or shoes officially
supposed, though for no apparent reason, to be the hair or shoes of the
gassed. For years I had been asking: « Show me or draw me a Nazi gas
chamber! » I have received no answer except insults, assaults, legal
claims and so on.
17. The Germans had a «
territorial final solution of the Jewish
question » (territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage), which was to give
the Jews a territory of their own in the future. National-Socialists
and Zionists agreed on that. Many Zionists collaborated with Adolf
Eichmann who was a Zionist and a friend of those Jews. That solution
had to be postponed to some time after the war. Meanwhile, many Jews
were transported or deported to the Eastern part of Europe. Those able
to work had to work. The others had to stay behind, to wait and often
to suffer, mostly from the dreadfully bad conditions of war and
blockade. Many Jewish children
died and many survived. In the German
cities many German children were
killed and sometimes so were Jewish
children in those same cities. Please note that the adjective «
territorial » is generally omitted by Germany’s accusers.
18. In every war you have massacres of innocent civilians. This
happened to Jewish people but I have found no trace of any policy of
killing the Jews. No order, no plan, no instruction, no budget for such
a policy. On the contrary, I have found that German military tribunals
convicted, sometimes sentencing to death, German soldiers, officers or
civil servants for having killed only one Jew or one Jewess (in Poland,
USSR, Hungary).
19. In December 1980 I summarized the result of my research on a radio
station in a sixty-word French sentence which was: « The alleged Nazi
gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are one and the same
historical lie, which has opened the way to a gigantic
political-financial swindle, whose principal beneficiaries are the
State of Israel and world Zionism and whose principal victims are the
German people –
but not their leaders – and the entire Palestinian
people ».
20. Ten years later, in 1990, with the Lex Faurissonia, I was
officially told that my conclusions were wrong. I suppose that
sometimes professors need to learn from the judges what history is all
about. Without law courts historians might not be able to see where
exactly historical accuracy lay. Nowadays, thanks to our French
politicians and judges we, Revisionists, realize that no longer is any
discussion, dispute or research permissible which would endanger the
general belief that the Genocide (with a capital « G ») of the Jews
and, at a much lower level, the genocide (with a small « g ») of the
Armenians really took place in the way the interested parties, that is,
the Jews and the Armenians, say it took place. We are left with no
choice: we have to obey like children and to repeat verbatim our
masters’ lessons. Thus we are like the little dog listening to his
master’s voice. If we want to eat we have to bark in tune. This is now
the case nearly all over the world, perhaps even including the Internet
in the near future. We are living in Aldous Huxley’s
Brave New World
(1932) and George Orwell’s
1984 (written in 1948).
Good luck and best wishes to the historians!
################################################
################################################
The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out
only in cyberspace.
For other FAV issues, please visit:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm
Sign a real right of return petition at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm
Check out a special slide show on Palestine at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm
Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm
To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm
For Palestinian Poems in English, go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm
The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and
submissions. If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list,
please indicate as much by writing to us.
