There will be no return to the ‘Historikerstreit’, which erupted here in Germany in 1986 and soon developed into a conflict over the meaning of the Nazi past for the Federal Republic’s political and cultural identity. Nevertheless,while the systematic murdering of European Jewry surely epitomizes man’s inhumanity to man in all its facets, it is still the duty of any historian to compare and contrast. The holocaust can best be understood by putting it into a context and comparing it.
This, of course, cannot suit Zionists who misappropriate and politically exploit Jewish suffering, by emphasizing its uniqueness and its relevance to them. Nevertheless, the same Zionists will then confront us with the most absurd comparisons in order to pursue their Machiavellian agenda. That is why in ‘Haaretz’ today we can read that, on giving his speech to AIPAC yesterday, Netanyahu was “solidly in his element, before his kind of crowd, delivering the Churchillian speech he was meant for, in the role that fate has thrust upon him.” Of course, the amateur historian might compare Netanyahu to Churchill, but it is the wider implications of this concocted comparison that we must be aware of.
Yes, Netanyahu is Churchill, Obama might be Chamberlain and Ahmadinejad, despite him having nothing like his power, is Hitler. Which, of course, all means that Iran is the new Nazi Germany; a Germany that had overrun most of Europe and North Africa by 1942. The comparison is, of course, quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, there we have our latter-day Churchill in his element, preaching to the faithful while dismissing anyone who disagrees with him by comparing them, “in some convoluted way”, to those War Department officials who refused to bomb Auschwitz in 1944.
Of course, here he would conveniently forget to mention that while many in the Jewish community publicly or privately advocated bombing the death camps or the railways leading to them, it was, the then Chairman of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, David Ben-Gurion who, in June 1944, presided a meeting of the Jewish Agency which voted eleven to one against a proposal to bomb Auschwitz. Moreover, the evidence would appear to suggest that this was in line with a general tendency for Zionist leaders to ignore pleas to rescue Jews from the holocaust.
Unfortunately, while this might be seen as a call for real historians to do their work, and for everyone to turn their backs on Netanyahu’s puerile polemic, the fact remains; yesterday, he was Churchill and Iran was Nazi Germany and, as the ‘Haaretz’ reporter, Chemi Shalev quite rightly says; “there were no Palestinians, no peace process, no 1967 borders and no settlements to freeze.” The exploitation of Jewish suffering and the misuse and abuse of history continues.