Zionism?

The chattering punditocracy's noise over the Holocaust conference in Iran has gotten so loud lately that I feel it is time to do some musing (not to mention David Duke's oh so wonderful interview with Blitzer on CNN recently). I have previously addressed the issue of Israel and US foreign policy so I won't address it again here. Suffice to say that the close relationship between the US and Israel is worthy of exploration but it also defies simplistic arguments (and conspiracy wackos). And suffice to say that the charge of anti-semitism is a useful and often applied tool to silence critics of Israel (less often by Israelis themselves, mind you). But the conference in Tehran, Iran has little to do with an objective analysis of Israeli politics, US- Israeli politics, the Holocaust, or even Zionism. The pitiful attempts by conference organisers and David Duke to link their work with honest academic work or with the recent work of Mearsheimer and Walt is disgusting and poorly reasoned. There is no continuum with Walt on one end and Duke on another. They are not in the same league or even the same game.

One wonders, however, whether Duke's point that the conference is about freedom of speech can as easily be dismissed. I would argue that it cannot but not for any simple reasons. It is a bit of a shame that in some European countries (Germany, Austria, and France) that one cannot publicly deny the Holocaust. It is not a shame in the sense that the Holocaust is a myth, mind you. It is a shame because there should never exist barriers to unpopular ideas- it is a slippery slope to the tyranny of the majority. But I wouldn't argue that this narrow limitation of speech is so constrictive as to deny objective historical inquiry either. It is nevertheless a law I could never agree with.

I firmly believe that letting full blown wackaloons spout off their crazy ideas about how the Holocaust is a myth is probably the best way to make sure no one really listens to them. Locking them up creates an audience that they may have lacked otherwise and grants them the space to use the liberal freedoms at the heart of European politics against Europe. Similarly, the idiocy of this Iranian conference stands on its own. It does not need condemnation by anyone. It is not a shame. It is not deplorable. It is not a grave threat to anyone (though I would argue that the Iranian President is a threat to some).

Academia is used to bizarre ideas and how to accommodate them. We have a review process for this so that we can weed out work that does not meet minimum standards but that also allows for controversial ideas to be heard. No one should be surprised then to find out that most if not all of the Holocaust denial work has never been put out by a reputable historian or political scientist. Such work does not meet the most basic requirements of any discipline. It is hate speech, pure and simple. The Holocaust conference is thus not about academic freedom or even the freedom to spout off unpopular ideas. It is a forum for hate speech. But as long as they want to pretend to be 'academics' doing honest research then let's judge them on those grounds and not let them turn the tables on us by appealing to our liberal ideals.

Taken from this perspective the Iran conference is more of a joke than a threat. The ideas espoused by Holocaust deniers are (hate speech aside) some of the most poorly reasoned and researched ideas I have come across. They need this forum because if held up to even minimal scrutiny they fall apart. They pay no attention to, oh I don't know, facts. They all fall back in one way shape or form on conspiracy arguments, which are notorious for being unfalsifiable.

So let these nutjobs do their thing. They harm no one but themselves. The greater fear is what this conference portends for Iran's evolving identity and foreign policy in the region. Threats to wipe Israel off the map are one thing coming from a lunatic at speaker's corner in Hyde Park. They are quite another when they come from the President of Iran. But let's not allow these deniers the opportunity to act as free speech martyrs.