"As Professor Achcar doubtless knows, this is called Holocaust inversion, a phenomenon one of the most respected scholars of antisemitism, Robert Wistrich, said "has become the most potent form of contemporary anti-Semitism." The notion that Holocaust inversion, when practiced by Palestinians, should be construed as an expression of "Palestinian compassion with the victims of the Holocaust", is arguably not only offensive because it is a pathetic attempt to excuse antisemitism, but also because it infantilizes the Palestinians as too dim-witted to understand what they are doing when they accuse the "people whose ancestors were victims of the Holocaust" of committing "another Holocaust". [...] I certainly fail to see how an effort to justify Holocaust inversion could "bridge the gap between the conflicting narratives" and "promote mutual understanding" - but then I'm also doubtful that it makes much sense to consider the Holocaust in terms of "conflicting narratives". Of course, "narrative" is an eminently useful category when facts are inconvenient, and it is easy to see that in the case of the Bi'lin protesters, the facts are terribly inconvenient."
Source: In praise of Holocaust inversion par Petra Marquardt-Bigman @ The Jerusalem Post
Under the title "Arabs have a complex relationship with the Holocaust", Professor Gilbert Achcar from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, recently promoted his newly published book The Arabs and the Holocaust at The Guardian's "Comment is Free" website.
Achcar starts his article by noting - or rather, complaining - that Holocaust denial in the Arab world is widely covered in the Western media. While he acknowledges that "Holocaust denial has been on the rise in Arab countries during the last two decades," he loses no time to come up with "explanations" - or rather, excuses - for this phenomenon. On the basis of these excuses, he then blithely asserts:
"Holocaust denial is not primarily an expression of antisemitism, as western Holocaust denial certainly is, but an expression of what I call the 'anti-Zionism of fools'. Yet it remains a minority phenomenon in the Arab world, fought by enlightened intellectuals and politically educated activists who explain that such attitudes are not only based on ignorance but do a disservice to the Palestinian cause. They point to the way any utterances of Holocaust denial are relayed by pro-Israeli websites, which use them in their propaganda."
In other words, Professor Achcar wants his readers to believe that Arab Holocaust deniers are just ignorant anti-Zionist fools who are a minority that is valiantly fought by intellectuals and political activists, whose most important argument seems to be that Holocaust denial is politically counter-productive.
Since I haven't yet read Professor Achcar's book, I can't say if he makes any attempt to support his claim that Holocaust denial "remains a minority phenomenon in the Arab world". However, it is a very well-documented fact that antisemitism, not to mention anti-Zionism, is anything but a "minority phenomenon" in the Arab and Muslim world. To quote just one relevant finding from the annual report of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and Racism in 2006:
The perception that the Jews (or "Israel," "the Mossad" or "Zionism") are behind every disaster befalling humanity and particularly those affecting Arabs and Muslims continues to dominate the Arab discourse."
A study from 2004 on "Anti-Semitism in the Contemporary Middle East" highlights another important point:
Anti-Semitism is supported by the establishment in Arab and Muslim countries. Anti-Semitism in the Middle East (and beyond) is not merely a grassroots movement, nor is it the exclusive province of intellectuals or radical Islamic movements or of opposition parties. On the contrary, it is supported by Arab and Islamic regimes in the Middle East (and beyond), whether Islamic-oriented or secular, [...] whether those regimes signed peace treaties with Israel or fight the peace process."
Given the prevalence and social "respectability" of antisemitism in the Arab world, Professor Achcar's assertions that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with antisemitism and is in any case a "minority phenomenon" would seem to reflect a heavy dose of wishful thinking.
But the case Achcar presents to support his thesis that "Arabs have a complex relationship with the Holocaust" morphs into an outright apology for antisemitism when he illustrates what he regards as "expressions of Palestinian compassion with the victims of the Holocaust". Achcar describes three examples, highlighting in particular the last one:
Most stunning of all, on 9 January 2009, at the peak of the brutal Israeli onslaught on Gaza, inhabitants of Bi'lin, another West Bank village known for standing at the forefront of the struggle against the Israeli occupation, organized a demonstration in protest, wearing striped pyjamas similar to those of Nazi concentration camp inmates. An account by the Bil'in Popular Committee states: 'Protesters also wore small yellow cutouts in the shape of Gaza with the word 'Gazan' written on them to symbolise the yellow 'Jude' stars of David worn by European Jews during World War II.' [...] That the message the Palestinian demonstrators conveyed was 'exaggerated' is obvious (and natural); but the point is that they were identifying with the Jewish victims of Nazism and regarding the Holocaust as the highest standard of horror, rather than denying it."
Achcar provides a link to the relevant statement of the Bil'in Popular Committee. The statement is entitled "Bil'in demonstrators remind the world of the Holocaust and its promise", and the paragraph from which Achcar quotes reads in full:
The protesters wore clothes similar to those worn by Jews in the fascist concentration camps during the Second World War. Protestors also wore small yellow cut-outs in the shape of Gaza with the word 'Gazan' written on them to symbolize the yellow 'Jude' stars of David worn by European Jews during World War II. This angry message was to remind the world of the Nazi Holocaust and of the promise made by the international community to never allow another Holocaust to happen, while this promise is being broken by the same people whose ancestors were victims of the Holocaust."
This statement makes abundantly clear just how preposterous it is to claim that this protest should be understood as an expression of "Palestinian compassion with the victims of the Holocaust". To the contrary: the protestors wanted to equate the Israeli army with the Nazis, and the Palestinians in Gaza with the Jewish victims of the Nazis.
As Professor Achcar doubtless knows, this is called Holocaust inversion, a phenomenon one of the most respected scholars of antisemitism, Robert Wistrich, said "has become the most potent form of contemporary anti-Semitism."
The notion that Holocaust inversion, when practiced by Palestinians, should be construed as an expression of "Palestinian compassion with the victims of the Holocaust", is arguably not only offensive because it is a pathetic attempt to excuse antisemitism, but also because it infantilizes the Palestinians as too dim-witted to understand what they are doing when they accuse the "people whose ancestors were victims of the Holocaust" of committing "another Holocaust". Since the article by Professor Achcar is meant to promote his just-published book, it seems fair to assume that the book offers a similar apology for antisemitism. Yet, the book is marketed by the publisher as "groundbreaking in its effort to bridge the gap between the conflicting narratives and to promote mutual understanding."
I certainly fail to see how an effort to justify Holocaust inversion could "bridge the gap between the conflicting narratives" and "promote mutual understanding" - but then I'm also doubtful that it makes much sense to consider the Holocaust in terms of "conflicting narratives". Of course, "narrative" is an eminently useful category when facts are inconvenient, and it is easy to see that in the case of the Bi'lin protesters, the facts are terribly inconvenient.
When the protesters dressed up as Jewish concentration camp inmates with a yellow patch inscribed "Gazan" instead of "Jude", they conveniently ignored the fact that the Jews were marked for extermination just because they were Jews; whereas Gazans had to endure a military campaign (interrupted every day for a few hours to allow for humanitarian aid) because their territory was used as a launching pad for attacks by Hamas - and the Bi'lin protesters would have done well to acknowledge that Hamas represents the political legacy of the notorious Nazi ally Haj Amin al-Husseini.
Moreover, when the Bi'lin protester disingenuously claimed that the promise "never [to] allow another Holocaust to happen" was "being broken by the same people whose ancestors were victims of the Holocaust", they also ignored the fact that a large number of the IDF soldiers involved in the campaign against Hamas were likely people whose ancestors were victims of the systematic dispossession and expulsion experienced by the Jews from Arab countries sometimes referred to as the "Jewish nakba".
Some other relevant facts are highlighted in a recent article by Shlomo Avineri. Under the title "The Arab position on the Holocaust", Avineri explores the background of the British White Paper of 1939, which reflected Arab demands to restrict Jewish immigration and the right of Jews to buy land in Mandatory Palestine. Avineri concludes:
Guilt for the Holocaust lies with Nazi Germany and its allies. But an untold number of Jews, perhaps as many as hundreds of thousands - including my grandparents from the Polish town of Makow Podhalanski - were not saved and did not reach Mandatory Palestine because of the position taken by the Arabs: They succeeded in shutting the country's gates during the darkest hour of the Jewish people. Anyone seeking reconciliation between us and the Palestinians must insist that both sides be attentive to the suffering of the other side, and that goes for the Palestinians as well as for us."
That shouldn't be asking too much, particularly in view of the fact that some researchers have described the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini as the "most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side, and, at the same time, a rabid antisemite."
Les Arabes et le Holocauste: la vérité, réponse à Gilbert Achcar
3 commentaires :
Le monde arabe s’est étendu au point de ne plus savoir où est son axe et de ne plus pouvoir refluer vers celui-ci, comme le firent notamment, les Turcs, lesquels avaient été longtemps les maîtres du dit monde arabe.
Si la Palestine a servi de moyen de recentrage pour les populations juives dispersées de par le monde, de même servirait-elle pour le monde arabe en quête d’un pôle identitaire central ?
Que la question du "sionisme mimétique" arabe soit une vraie question ne signifie pas que la réponse se situe ipso facto en Palestine. Car historiquement, la Palestine ne constitue aucunement le berceau du monde arabe alors qu’elle l’est pour le Peuple Juif.
On serait donc bel et bien en face d’un processus mimétique de la part du monde arabe face au monde juif, d’une sorte de calque. Un processus qui en arrive à revendiquer carrément la même terre marquée par les références bibliques, la même ville de Jérusalem.
Parler du nationalisme palestinien est une vision des choses bien différente de celle du "sionisme arabe". Quelle est la grille la plus adéquate des deux pour appréhender la situation ?
Pourquoi le monde arabe est-il si concerné par ce qui se passe en Palestine ? (et c’est notamment le cas dans la minorité arabe en France.) Tout se passe comme si ces diasporas arabes trouvaient quelque motivation à se centrer sur la Palestine, copiant en cela les Juifs, tout en étant décalés par rapport à la réalité historique. Autrement dit, le "sionisme" arabe est infiniment plus mythique que le sionisme juif et il est significatif de noter que le seul lien entre Mahomet et Jérusalem tienne à un voyage mystique, en rêve.
En réalité, ce n’est évidemment pas d’hier que les arabes imitent les juifs et la célébration annuelle lors de l’Aid El Qebir du sacrifice du fils d’Abraham, en cette même Palestine, qu’ils disent être Ismaël, le fils d’Agar et non Isaac, le fils de Sarah, comme il est dit dans la Bible que sur ce point le Coran récuse, en témoigne. Il n’y aurait pas eu une telle importance accordée à Jérusalem lorsque la Cité tomba, en 638, aux mains des Arabes si celle-ci n’avait été juive, en raison de l’affirmation d’une descendance spirituelle, nourrie par la parenté sémitique entre l’arabe et l’hébreu et qui fait, un peu vite, des Arabes comme des Juifs des Sémites.
En vérité, la thèse du "sionisme" arabe se polarisant sur Jérusalem et plus globalement sur la Palestine semble, somme toute, plus crédible, plus vraisemblable, que celle du nationalisme palestinien qui n’est qu’une posture, un masque. Encore faut-il faire la part du panarabisme, à l’instar du pangermanisme - notamment avec l’affaire des Sudètes mais aussi avec ses constantes revendications sur l’Alsace, finalement annexée en 1870, pour près d’un demi-siècle - revendiquant tout territoire où une population, géographiquement à peu près localisée, parle arabe.
Sionisme arabe, panarabisme, nationalisme palestinien, nous avons là trois grilles de lecture. La seule admise par le monde arabe étant la dernière parce qu’elle correspond à un modèle simple : il y a une population relativement homogène, qui veut être indépendante ; il faut qu’elle devienne indépendante. CQFD. Le critère de présence d’une population dans un lieu donné était quelque chose d’assez discutable et qui d’ailleurs encourage les génocides et les transferts de population puisqu’il suffit que la dite population s’en aille pour qu’elle perde ses droits sur le pays en question.
C’est d’ailleurs, au nom de ce principe, que les Palestiniens et les Arabes en général contestent le droit des Juifs à s’installer en Palestine puisqu’ils ont eu le tort d’en partir. Qui va à la chasse perd sa place. Il suffirait qu’une population s’installe dans un pays pour que ce pays lui appartint. Or, tel n’est pas le cas des Juifs qui sont venus s’installer dans un pays où leurs aïeux avaient vécu précédemment. On voit donc que l’on revient à l’impérialisme arabe qui présuppose que là où des Arabes se sont mis, il n’est plus jamais question qu’ils en partent. Et nous revenons au coeur du problème, à savoir qu’à force de se disperser et de s’identifier tant géographiquement que culturellement avec les pays auxquels ils ont pu avoir accès, les arabes ne savent plus que est leur centre géographique. Et c’est bien pour cela, que montrant les mêmes tendances, le sionisme de Herzl fait écho pour les uns et les autres à savoir que les arabes comme les Juifs, en dépit de leurs diversités internes, forment un seul et unique peuple ayant besoin d’un seul et unique centre.
Il est bien évident que cette Palestine ne saurait être le lieu de rassemblement d’une partie significative du monde arabe, lequel n’envisage d’ailleurs aucunement un tel repli des pays qu’il occupe, ce qui le distingue tout de même assez nettement du sionisme juif. Au vrai, cette Palestine ne fait sens, à l’échelle du monde arabe, que parce que les Juifs y sont impliqués, et ce par un souci récurrent de mimétisme.
A century old pogrom 1920 [ https://books.google.com/books?id=WxYbDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT114 ] , led by M. Aref, incited by [ex mufti of Arab Palestine] arch racist al-Husseini.
21 years later ex Mufti met with Hitler.
His henchmen include: the fraud Issa Nakhleh holocaust denier (Nov.14.1972 at UN; 1978 at peace summit Camp David, in 1981 lecturer at IHR on behalf of Muslim Congress, linked to, worked with major neo nazis publications and groups) and the genocidal Ahmad Shukairy (the inventor of apartheid slur in Oct.17.1961) who questioned loyalty of Catholic Uruguayan rep. Fabregat stating he's "Jewish;" got booted (end of 1962) from UN after saluting Nazi gang.
Enregistrer un commentaire