In previous messages, aemathisphd, you wrote

"Holocaust denial exists as a continuation of anti-Semitism before 1945. It's no more complicated than that."  

and "To a person, those people who give credence to Holocaust denial as part of a larger conspiracy theory are anti-Semites at heart." 

pacificaforum.org/posts/445 pacificaforum.org/posts/447

and in your recent post pacificaforum.org/posts/505

you wrote, re. the purges in the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign

"Holocaust deniers are going to be purged. It's too contagious a charge, like pedophilia."

because

"It reminds older generations of the Nazis, whom they personally fought".

It's highly offensive and wrong to equate a view of history, no matter how mistaken, with a serious crime. But, aemathisphd, you are part of the reason it's 'too contagious'! Your and many others' efforts to say Holocaust revisionism is anti-Jewish, to say doubting something is like thinking it was a good idea, is part of the reason the PSC is weakening itself. Part of the reason why Zionism is strong, why Palestinians are dying, and another war looms in the Middle East! The thing is to fight Zionist ideology. This means allowing, nay welcoming, Holocaust revisionism in Palestine solidarity circles. Its a way of saying we won't be blackmailed, we'll figure it out for ourselves, thank you.

As for 'they personally fought' against the Nazis, well there are older generations who fought with the Nazis, so that's not much of an argument, particularly in Eastern Europe!

I know people who have serious doubts about the Holocaust for exactly the same reason they have doubts about the official story of September 11th, 2001. In my humble opinion, it's because they lack a solid grasp of logic, evidence and the scientific method. That's how I approach both questions. I think I'm right, and I patiently try to explain why. I don't psychoanalyze people who disagree. I don't call them haters or idiots.

The president of Iran is a Holocaust denier. He's not the only one in the Islamic world. There are millions of them. They may be wrong, but I don't see why that particular aspect of their world-view should be singled out and labeled 'hate'.

Your argument in

pacificaforum.org/posts/505

is rather complicated - you say that, if one thinks the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated, then one must look for a conspiracy to exaggerate it, and the only party who would carry out that conspiracy would be 'the Jews'. No, not at all. To say it's 'the Jews' would require in addition a conception of collective ethnic responsibility. Palestine solidarity activists are commonly smeared with "blaming the Jews" - why is the ridiculous allegation that you believe something about 'the Jews' more effective than an allegation of believing any other group identified by the definite article 'the'? It's because of philo-Semitism, deference to Jews, the goyische urge to prove we're not Nazis. It's the only serious form of racism left in Western societies. Even Obama has it!

My view on the genocide in North America has gone up and down over decades, with 1992 being a high point of the 'deliberate genocide' idea - at no point have my personal feelings about Native Americans changed at all. Same with the Aborigines. Same with the Armenians. So what's so  special about Jews? Why is it that subjecting their history to cold analysis, when that analysis makes a mistake, has to lead to collective punishment? It doesn't.

I can't reject Holocaust revisionism on the grounds that, if I accept it, it will inevitably lead to a viewpoint which, if I also fall into the fallacy of racial responsibility, would lead me to hate Jews. I reject it because, so far, I find the official story more convincing. I found Hilberg's book to be a bit more plausible than Graf's response. In a way, I'm lucky - I'm not impressed by Holocaust revisionism - but I am obliged to defend the freedom of those who are.

Just because you think people who disagree with you are inherently evil, doesn't mean they do! Does your defense of the official Holocaust narrative lead you to racial hatred? If not, why should disagreement with it do so?

Holocaust denial is, at worst, another illogical conspiracy theory. It has absolutely nothing to do with hating an ethnic group. Calling it 'hate' is an attempt to use emotional blackmail and guilt to convince us of a historical fact. No wonder people are suspicious!

Deborah Lipstadt's page at Emory University is a classic example of trying to defend facts by alleging one knows the motives of those who disagree. Prior to presenting the facts, http://www.hdot.org alleges that dissidents who dispute those facts have "an ideological and racist agenda." Quite apart from the chutzpah in this charge, it deviates from normal academic practice. Motives are irrelevant. I don't believe revisionists are driven by hate, any more than I believe climate change sceptics are driven by the 'dominance-based worldview' typical of 'conservative white men', as Naomi Klein recently argued in the Nation, but even if I did, it would be quite irrelevant to the facts of history and the laws of physics.

The fact that 'Holocaust denial' is only used to mean denying that one holocaust - the Nazi Judeocide - is evidence of a pro-Jewish bias in Western societies. However, the term 'denial' has of course begun to creep into other areas - the official global warming establishment use it to try to psychoanalyze away contrary scientific opinions. President Obama referred to the 9/11 conspiracy theory as 'hate' as if the emotions involved are a guide to the facts. In fact, no one 9/11 theory is more hateful than any other. It's the same with the Holocaust.