..::” Many years ago, someone I consider a good friend tried to corner me on this issue. Referring to the far-right in Israel I had used the term “Nazi”. He violently disagreed with the use of the term, even though he conceded that these particular people were genocidal – they were calling for the extermination of Palestinians. “The term “Nazi” should be a synonym for “Jew killer”” was what his argument boiled down to (in fact I think that’s a direct quote from that discussion). –

The problem here is one of history as well as theory. From a historical perspective it’s not clear to me that the killing of as many as 7 million people (mostly, but not exclusively, of the Jewish faith) is more worthy of recognition than the killing of 10 million people in the Congo or the killing of 100 million people in India. The common thread is that all of these atrocities were committed by Europeans – Germans, Belgians and British Europeans to be precise. The Holocaust is one of many terrible atrocities that one could cite by way of analogy when faced with a current example of a militarised population murdering civilians. –

Out of all of these examples, only the Holocaust has been universally recognised in our culture as an act of unspeakable evil. If I write a science fiction book about a guy who comes to power and starts killing people, I don’t compare my character to King Leopold or Winston Churchill (though those would be perfectly reasonable analogies). If I want to explain to someone in an instant that my character is a very bad person, I compare him to Hitler. –

If you ask anyone – even someone as thick as Konstantin Kisin seems to be in this interview – what was bad about the Nazis, they’ll have the right answer. The Nazi engaged in the systemic oppression and murder of entire categories of people (Jews, Socialists, Romani, queer people, etc). They not only committed those atrocities, they declared their intent to “rid Europe of its Jews” to paraphrase some of the language of the “Final Solution”. So when we have similar language from Israeli officials – “We will eliminate everything”, “Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live.” – not to mention the killing of tens of thousands of women and children, is it not time to make the obvious analogy without fear? –

Ultimately those who argue for the sacrosanct status of the Holocaust are guilty of creating the circumstances by which the Holocaust can be repeated. Is the lesson from the Holocaust a particular lesson or a universal one? Does it only apply to European Jews who were living in Europe in the 1930s and 40s? If so, then there is no lesson of the Holocaust. The exact circumstances of 1930s Europe will never be repeated; therefore there’s nothing to learn from the holocaust if you believe that all of those circumstances must be in place in order to justify an analogy. –

The only way in which there is anything to learn from the Holocaust is if we take it as a universal principle – no group should be targeted and killed just because they are members of that group. The universality of the Holocaust underlies the entire human rights framework (which was largely written in response to the Holocaust). The group in question doesn’t matter – those who have devoted their lives to human rights often cite atrocities committed against Armenians and people from East Timor as some of the worst atrocities ever. Both of those groups happen to be Christians who were persecuted by Muslims. So the cries of antisemitism make no sense either – those who are fighting against genocide fight against all of them, especially those that their own government is complicit in. –

..::” If we do not universalise the lessons from the Holocaust, if we accept that there’s something that’s sacrosanct about it, what is that thing that is sacrosanct? It’s not the number of people killed – those numbers have been exceeded in Africa and in Asia. Is it the religion of those who were murdered? Given the long history of antisemitism in Europe that seems unlikely. So what is it that gives the Holocaust this unique status? –

I don’t have an answer to this question, but I do have a guess. I fear that what makes the Holocaust against European Jews sacrosanct is the fact that they were European. African and Asian genocides don’t have the right sort of victims. Black people dying we can live with, but white people dying? Never Again (repeated over and over, and repeated by the exact same people who are simultaneously justifying the murder of thousands of Palestinian children). –

The preoccupation with one particular genocide above all others may or may not be due to racism. But it is a preoccupation that does exist. We make (mediocre) movies about escaping the Nazis, we write (and read) novels about the Nazis, and so on. It’s the one example of genocide that firmly ensconced in the public imagination. Those of us who are actually in favour of universal human rights have an obligation to use this example – the only example that the public really gets – as part of our effort to end the current genocide. –

Bassem Youssef was essentially asked what he would do if he was put in the situation of being in charge of an ongoing genocidal occupation. His answer is absolutely the right one – he would end that occupation and the genocide. But in order to get this point through the thick heads of those who seem intent on insisting that this war is like any other, we should not shy away from historical analogies, including the analogy to World War 2 when appropriate. ***

Sameer Dossani is co-director of Peace Vigil, an organisation dedicated to Peace Education. They are online at: PeaceVigil.net