The Warped Mirror: Unbiased about the Holocaust?

It sure was formulated rather delicately on the BBC website:

Hamas condemns Holocaust lessons: Gaza's ruling Islamist movement Hamas has resisted suggestions that Palestinian children should be taught about the Holocaust in UN-run schools."

 
The report went on to explain that the head of the education committee in Gaza had declared "that the Holocaust was a 'big lie'" and "that to teach it would be to 'grant a big favour' to Israel."

The BBC also reported that the UN, which runs most schools in Gaza and teaches some 200,000 children there, relies primarily on Egyptian textbooks but "has added its own coursework about human rights." According to the BBC, the UN has now consulted with local groups regarding "whether the Holocaust should be taught."

Well, one might wonder whether the head of the education committee, who describes the Holocaust as a "big lie," is a graduate of Gaza's UN-run schools. One might also wonder how many UN-employed educators in Gaza share his views, and how many of these educators - and how many of their UN employers - realize the irony in the fact that adding "coursework about human rights" was apparently uncontroversial, while "suggestions" that lessons about the Holocaust be added elicited indignant protests.

Consider these statements from a speech given by Kofi Annan in his capacity as UN Secretary General:

It is ... rightly said that the United Nations emerged from the ashes of the Holocaust. And a human rights agenda that fails to address anti-Semitism denies its own history. Worldwide revulsion at this terrible genocide was the driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ... It is hard to believe that, 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. This time, the world must not, cannot be silent. We owe it to ourselves, as well as to our Jewish brothers and sisters, to stand firmly against the particular tide of hatred that anti-Semitism represents. And that means we must be prepared to examine the nature of today's manifestations of anti-Semitism more closely ... there remains a need for constant vigilance. So let us actively and uncompromisingly refute those who seek to deny the fact of the Holocaust or its uniqueness, or who continue to spread lies and vile stereotypes about Jews and Judaism. When we seek justice for the Palestinians - as we must - let us firmly disavow anyone who tries to use that cause to incite hatred against Jews, in Israel or elsewhere."

Well, what about it?

Since the BBC report on the controversy in Gaza is just a short news item, it doesn't raise any of these issues. However, it points out that "Nazi Germany murdered some six million Jews" during the Holocaust, and then concludes by explaining that "the event's significance is often disputed in parts of the Middle East where Israel is seen as the enemy and the Holocaust is seen as a tool used by Israel to justify its actions."

In such a short news report (that could of course have been a bit less short), it's perhaps unfair to criticize the somewhat meager and not entirely accurate statement about Nazi Germany as the sole perpetrator of the Holocaust. But aside from the fact that the Nazis found lots of willing collaborators all over Europe, it would have certainly been relevant in the context of this specific report to mention that among Nazi Germany's collaborators and admirers there were also a number of prominent Muslim Brotherhood figures - and Hamas is of course an offshoot of the Brotherhood.

An excellent recent article that describes the "inspiration" the group draws from the Nazis, and its ties with them, is "Hasan al-Banna: Brotherhood, Jihad and Nazism."

But there is also something questionable about the explanation that the Holocaust's "significance is often disputed in parts of the Middle East where Israel is seen as the enemy and the Holocaust is seen as a tool used by Israel to justify its actions."

Admittedly, it would be difficult to express in one or two sentences the grotesque ways in which the Holocaust is often presented in the Middle East. It is denied outright, or is described as a "Zionist lie" - and at the same time, Israel is denounced as a foreign colonial implant in the Middle East, established due to European guilt over the Holocaust - which didn't happen - or which the "Zionists" wanted to happen, and schemed to make happen, while the "real Holocaust" is happening to the Palestinians, etc. etc.

So maybe it's too much to ask to get even an inkling of all this into a short report, but why offer an "explanation" that comes perilously close to suggesting that there is a perfectly good reason - namely Israel - for the head of the education committee in Gaza's claim that the Holocaust is a "big lie"?

Moreover, this "explanation" ultimately treats Holocaust denial and the many forms of Holocaust distortion as just another "narrative" that, like all narratives, is entirely legitimate in its own context.

It is this rather fashionable, ostensibly "unbiased" and "non-judgmental" approach that also seems to have played a role in the recent decision by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo to interview the historian David Irving - whose claim to "fame" rests on his denial of the Holocaust - for a series marking the anniversary of the beginning of WWII.

The paper reportedly interviewed Irving because it was interested in "opinions on polemical questions left behind by the war," and because Irving, who had served time in an Austrian jail for his Holocaust denial, was a good figure to illustrate the current debate about "the criminalisation of opinion."

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "polemical questions left behind by the war" when it comes to the Holocaust. But in any case, El Mundo also interviewed Avner Shalev, the chairman of Yad Vashem, and the paper planned to publish the two interviews on consecutive days. As Robin Shepherd noted caustically:

It is a standard technique in journalism to run opposing viewpoints on consecutive days in order to provide a rounded picture to readers. So, for readers of El Mundo, Friday's edition will assert that the Holocaust did happen. Saturday's will assert that it did not. Who knows, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle?"

Right, you can't get any more unbiased...