Pope Francis said on Monday (Tuesday NZ Time) that countries have a responsibility to fight anti-Semitism and the “virus of indifference” that threatens to erase the memory of the Holocaust.
Francis’ comments to an international conference on anti-Semitism came as the largely Roman Catholic Poland considers legislation that would outlaw blaming Poles for the crimes of the Holocaust. The proposed legislation has sparked an outcry in Israel.
Francis didn’t mention the dispute but he did speak of his 2016 visit to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in German-occupied Poland, saying he remembered “the roar of the deafening silence” that left room for only tears, prayer and requests for forgiveness.
Maybe if zionism stopped using the Holocaust for it’s Shallow reasons.
Using the Holocaust in Cynical ways.
Disrespecting the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazi’s
People should read Norman G. Finkelstein’s – “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry
Then people may give the Holocaust the respect it deserves rather than turning away because of it’s abuse by zionists. . .
The concept of a Holocaust Industry in the sense that Finkelstein portrays it, can delegitimize and discredit genuine and heartfelt memorials and commemorations of a terrible tragedy.
If it is true that no commemorations were recorded of the Holocaust prior to 1967, then this does not mean that commemorations subsequent to 1967 were and are disingenuous.
“Indifference” or a lack of comment or discussion about a widespread traumatic event is a common human reaction. Many NZers who returned from WW1 or even WW2, did not and often refused to discuss the horrible experiences they witnessed; some changed their minds late in life. An acquaintance served in Guadalcanal in the RNZAF. He witnessed the death of his colleagues yet he never told his son of his experiences until a few months before he died in the early 2000s.
Another acquaintance’s parents experienced the fall of Berlin in 1945. They never spoke about what the rapes and summary executions they witnessed at all until their children asked them about it in the 60s, after finding about it through other sources. Would it be wrong for German society to publicly mourn their lost?
It seems to us societies after a traumatic event can go through several decades of relative silence before it is ready to process its trauma in a more open way. Financial benefit doesn’t necessarily equate to exploitation.
If it was, then Finkelstein himself could be accused of profiting from it too, being on the end of a chain, that begins with the holocaust, linked by those who have seen fit to publish books that might raise awareness of it, and then himself publishing a book, that he will presumably financially benefit from, about the publishers and anyone else who has been paid to organise a commemoration of one sort or another. With this kind of thinking, every museum curator, historian or even analyst would be discredited, clearly this would be absurd.
Norman Finkelstein makes a cogent case that zionism has gone past Remembering the Holocaust and many of the actions of zionism have turned it into an Industry.
I do not believe that your assertion that discussing and debating a Holocaust Industry “in the sense that Finkelstein portrays it, can delegitimize and discredit genuine and heartfelt memorials and commemorations of a terrible tragedy” is correct.
Indeed, to say that one cannot discuss an issue makes one wonder what the people denying the access to the debate are hiding. And Why.
zionism often uses acusations of Anti Semitism and Holocaust Denial to shut down ANY debate they don’t like being debated.
Indeed, Alan Dershowitz seemed to infer that Noam Chompsky was a Holocaust Denier because he supported Freedom of speech even though he disagreed with that persons position.
Dershowitz dropped to a cunning low in his attempt to shut down debate. And anyoen knowing Noam Chopsky knew that. . .
It demeaned himself. And it demeaned zionism as he is a major supporter/protector of it’s principles and they didn’t call him put on his seeming slander.
Let the debate happen. The people who are wrong will be shown up. . .
Which ever side if the debate they are on.
Hi Neil,
Obviously we weren’t clear. We didn’t intend to shut down the debate nor say it was off limits for discussion. You say that NZFOI “say that one cannot discuss an issue.” We challenge you to find that text anywhere in our reply.
However we are saying that his idea of a Holocaust Industry can create a level of cynicism that discredits genuine mourning. It also risks discrediting those who might write about their experiences as part of the historical record.
That is not the same as saying that the topic cannot be discussed. It is saying that we think Finkelstein needs to be clearer in his messaging, that in coining the phrase the Holocaust Industry, he isn’t saying that people who experienced the Holocaust, or those interested in history shouldn’t write about their experience nor commemorate those who died.
Zionism is motivated by creating a safe homeland for Jews. Centuries of progroms, ethnic cleansing from nation states, beatings and forced conversions to other religions can be quite motivating.
Just because Finkelstein makes a cogent argument doesn’t make it correct, only cogent. We see that there are many learned authorities who strongly disagree with his assertions.
We need you to understand, in a debate, people are free to disagree and just because someone makes a different assertion doesn’t mean you can’t discuss it; we need you not to read into what we are saying as “stop talking”, “we are shutting you down”, and “be silent”. If you are, then we suggest you might be projecting your feelings for someone else on to us.
Having said that, there are some guidelines that we keep to and if not kept to, we will exercise our right to not allowing it to be published:
We always want to encourage constructive discussion and debate. In practical terms, this means:
* Acting respectfully
* Not repeating over and over an assertion, as if mere repetition will win an argument
* Not saying something just to inflame and offend
* We have never met anyone who is not passionate for justice. After seeing something that makes your blood boil, please pause, take a breath, exhale reeeeal sloooooowly, then ask yourself, is what you are about to say, True, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary and Kind? If you can’t say yes to all five criteria, then don’t say it.
* Refraining from using ALL CAPS. In netiquette, this is called shouting. Most parents tell their children that raising their voices is a poor way to get their point across in any discussion.
* Promoting Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Justification, the Khazar Myth, and Conspiracy Theories about World Domination by Jews will result in instant bans.
* Threats of violence, or remarks that incite violence and racist remarks will also result in instant bans.
Thanks in advance.
I think that you have made yourself clear.
When you write -“we are saying that his idea of a Holocaust Industry can create a level of cynicism that discredits genuine mourning. It also risks discrediting those who might write about their experiences as part of the historical record. ”
This seems to be a subtle attempt to get people to self censor what they write.
No discussion around a political issue – the “Holocaust Industry” should ” create a level of cynicism that discredits genuine mourning” or “discrediting those who might write about their experiences”.
The Holocaust Did Happen. Peoples Experiences are Facts. Nothing can be discredited about the Facts there.
It is zionisms, and anyone elses, use of the Holocaust for Political Advantage that is Disgusting.
Once again, I will say, it shames zionism and all people who use that event for their own political ends.
But then, I am going to guess that you may disagree and that you think that the Holocaust is fair game for Political ends. Much like zionists have done since 1946/47.