Holocaust Denial is No Joke

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Miriam Shaviv says:

    “Though few of the deniers have any academic training or credentials, a few do. Nor are they universally stupid. David Irving, for instance, is considered by many a first-rate archivist. In this battle, as in almost every intellectual encounter, it is wise not to underestimate the opposition or overestimate one’s own strength.
    Grobman and Shermer make clear that most university students would be ill-equipped to confront the most articulate deniers unless they knew a great deal in advance about their methods and about the Holocaust. To prove the point, they quote at length from a disastrous T.V. interview by host Phil Donahue with two prominent deniers.”

    — See also Wolf Blitzer of CNN interviewing David Duke last week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2QMQi-m63E); Duke gave Blitzer a good run for his money and came across as articulate and intelligent, thus making him much more dangerous than most of us usually assume.

  2. Ori Pomerantz says:

    Jonathan Rosenblum: … once there, it would be foolish to rely on college students to refute them or on college faculty, many of whom have been infected with terminal relativism, to protect the students.

    Ori: This is the root of the problem. Holocaust deniers are just one type of lie peddler. We can find many more, at various risk levels.

    The real problem is relativism, which is the cultural version of AIDS. It destroys the critical thinking facilities that are a culture’s antibodies.

  3. Michoel says:

    This will probably seem like an unneccesary hyper-religious nitpick to another excellent article by Jonathon Rosenblum. I write for my own peace of mind.
    I don’t like this phraeseology in its various permutations: “…anticipated the day when the last survivor had passed…” “That day is fast approaching.”
    As the child of a survivor who is in his mid seventies and bli ayin hara in very good health, I hope that it will be many more years until we do no have first hand witnesses.

  4. Aaron says:

    NK should have been treated this way by gedolim a quarter century ago.

    Why do haredim race to burn sheitlach without a primer explaining the details of the investigations and move at a glacial pace with the condemnation of the appeasers and bribe-takers of rodefim?

    I don’t understand the halachos of inciting potential rodefim to act.

    When news travels around the world in minutes now, proactive statements are MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER. Moreover, the non-gedolim need immediate access to web links to corroborate, in the original, the exact words and reasoning behind pronouncements. This will counteract the rumor mills and spinning.

    Our PR priorities are backwards, a generation or two behind present technology, and it undermines confidence in our leaders. At least it does mine.

  5. JoeSettler says:

    As muqata.blogspot.com pointed out, last week the Prime Minister of Israel met with Holocaust Denier Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas).

    Like the Naturei Karta, Ehud Olmert also hugged and kissed this notorious Holocaust Denier.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas

    In his book, Abbas wrote:

    “It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand.”

    So why is the Neturei Karta meeting with Ahmadinejad worse than Olmert meeting with PLO chairman Abu Mazen, after all, both want Israel destroyed and both deny the Holocaust?

  6. katrina says:

    what about the sneaky and subtle Holocaust minimization of xtians and catholics? What if they had said plain and up front, “We the xtians and catholics believe that six million fertilized human eggs aborted at the moment of conception is just the same as six million murdered Jews except that the unborn are innocent” ?

  7. Bob Miller says:

    JoeSettler — December 25, 2006 @ 8:59 am

    made an excellent point. I suppose one could say that more is expected of someone in Chassidic garb, but the underlying issue is the same whether the enemy in question is Iranian or Palestinian. One could also say that PM Olmert is not a free agent regarding whom he meets. If he’s not, and foreign powers make him cozy up to Abu Mazen, then Israel has a lot less independence than it lets on.

  8. Jacob Haller says:

    Katrina’s statement (#6) is completely hypothetical and therefore likely disingenuous.. Maybe there is a case for Holocaust minimization from those quarters but without anything factual and accurate the criticism is rendered meaningless.

    What is more factual is that animal extremists like PETA often utilize Holocaust imagery to promote vegetarianism.

  9. katrina says:

    re: Jacob’s comment
    no my comment is not hypothetical-catholic catechism plainly states that the unborn are to be treated as human from the moment of conception from the moment of conception without distinction between born and unborn life.
    The motto of the “pro-life” movement is “life begins at conception”
    and ending the life of a fertilized egg is is regarded as “murder” same as killing a born human being.
    Mother Theresa believed abortion is the worst evil because it preys on the “innocent”. So according to this “morality” killing a fertilized egg is worse than killing a born human being.
    Abortion has been called the “Holocaust of the unborn” for about 34 years now. Well, think about the ramifications of that.

  10. Bob Miller says:

    Judaism has far more in common with the pro-life movement, agreeing at the very least that abortion is generally evil, than with the pro-death movement.

    While we assign a very specific meaning to the word holocaust, it preexisted the 1930’s and we, despite our unprecedented grave losses, have no patent on it. It is possible to use the word sensitively in other contexts without in any way denigrating our kedoshim.

    Of course, the word can be misapplied for propaganda reasons by our enemies (as by the same Palestinians whose religion falsely casts Yishmael and not Yitzchak as the potential sacrifice by Avraham). Each case has to be interpreted carefully.

  11. katrina says:

    Re: Bob Miller’s comment
    I thought Judaism is about distinguishing between the holy and unholy-NOT about choosing which unholy side you have more in commen with.

  12. Bob Miller says:

    Katrina,

    Are you suggesting having no political alliances whatsoever, short or long-term, for any purpose whatsoever? Who out there whould you deem acceptable for Jews to work with? The most traditionalist Orthodox rabbinic leaders, for example, have made common cause with Catholic Cardinals on some legislation addressing social issues of mutual concern—notwithstanding the many serious differences Jews have with the Church.

  13. Bob Miller says:

    Regarding maintaining the memory of German atrocities:
    In finding out more about my father’s WW2 unit (701st Tank Battalion, which supported the 102nd “Ozark” Infantry Division), I found this about a massacre the 102nd and 701st arrived too late to stop:

    http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Gardelegen_(war_crime)

    Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust by Yaffa Eliach has more on this, including:
    http://www.geocities.com/djampafr/html/A_Passover_Melody.htm

  14. Bob Miller says:

    CORRECTION TO Comment by Bob Miller — December 28, 2006 @ 8:34 am

    http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Gardelegen_%28war_crime%29

    is the correct first link

  15. Bob Miller says:

    More in-depth detail on Gardelegen from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:

    http://www1.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10006173

  16. katrina says:

    re: Bob’s comment
    There’s a distinction between politics and moral issues. At no point should our need to make political alliences interfere with our ultimate duty to HaSh-m. Besides identifying where we agree with others it’s important to clarify where we disagree. Take PETA for instance, kindness to animals is a Torah value, and PETA does a lot of good work in that area. However the moment PETA puts animal life ahead of human life that’s where I disagree with them. Human life takes precedence over animal life, that is a Torah principle. Even if it’s the life of one human being versus millions of animals, that one human being’s life takes precedence. So I agree and disagree with PETA. Kindness to animals is good-letting any human die to save animal life is bad. It is my responsibility to voice not only where I agree but where I disagree as well. If my disagreeing causes PETA to hate me then so be it. My ultimate allience is with HaSH-m. If I do not do what is right in HaSh-m’s eyes, whatever realpolitik I undertake is going to fail in the end. So too when it comes to the xtians and their stance on abortion. I agree with the “pro-life” movement that life is profound and holy at the moment of conception and never to be taken lightly. However, the minute they put unborn life ahead of born life that’s where I disagree with them. If they think it’s acceptable to risk the life of even one born human being in order to save the lives of the unborn that’s where I part company with them . Born life takes precedence over unborn life, that is a Torah principle. And if standing up for that principle causes xtians and catholics to hate us then so be it. Because in the end we rely on HaSh-m and if we do not do what is right in HaSh-m’s eyes whatever political support we think we have from such people will ultimately crumble.

Pin It on Pinterest