The following conversation with my friend Doga began with my insistence that Nichane has the right to publish popular jokes even if they are offensive to the sensibilities of some people. Doga was equally insistent that there are limits to what it is acceptable for public discussion, even in the West. In this, he shares the reasoning of blogger Mohamed El Kortbi and others.

Doga used the Holocaust as an example. Aren’t there nations like Austria where a person can go to prison for denying the Holocaust? I responded that I’m not among those who believe that denying the Holocaust should be a crime. As proof of my committment to free expression, he challenged me to “review the Holocaust” on this blog, like President Ahmadinejad of Iran did at a recent conference. I replied that I didn’t see much point, as the facts have been established for a long time. He insisted this isn’t so, and gave me the names of people who say the Holocaust is exaggerated. I replied that one musn’t listen only to those who say what one wants to hear.

We went back and forth on the evidence for a long time, trying to reach a common version of reality. In the end, we both felt we had achieved something. I’m including the last two thirds of our conversation here, picking up after an overnight break. To me, our discussion was less about facts than about the process of reaching them, less about specific truths than about Pontius Pilate’s famous question, “What is truth?”

— • —

doga: Let’s talk about the Holocaust, if you don’t mind.

eatbees: Okay. I read up on that guy Friedman you told me about, and he’s way outside the mainstream. He has ties to the extreme right in Austria, to people who are essentially racists. He’s a Jew who defends the persecution of his own people. Obviously, he doesn’t have many friends. You know, you can’t just “cherry pick” whatever fits your argument, the way Cheney did to attack Saddam. You need to look at the overall picture. Just about everyone agrees the Holocaust actually happened. There have been plenty of investigations to prove it. You have the right to say what you want, of course, but it’s better not to show people your ignorance, your prejudice, or your racism if you want to be listened to.

doga: The revisionists aren’t allowed to challenge the mainstream. It’s forbidden. And they insist there are holes that need to be filled in.

eatbees: It’s true there is a lot of propaganda against the revisionists. But I think we need to question their motives. Who are they linked to? What are they after? I’m convinced that an objective study of the facts would be supported by the Jewish community. At the same time, it has to be said that there are plenty of genocides in the world, and perhaps we talk too much about the Holocaust.

doga: You said there’s no point in discussing it. You said the truth is already known. But the revisionists don’t agree.

eatbees: We can always discuss it objectively, to better understand the evidence. But to say the Holocaust wasn’t a massacre is bizarre.

doga: Who said the Holocaust wasn’t a massacre?

eatbees: I think some of those people claim there were never gas chambers and ovens….

doga: I know that. But they claim that the Jews exaggerate history in order to profit from it.

eatbees: That’s nothing but racist language!

doga: Why do you say racist?

eatbees: If you want to talk about profit, don’t you realize that the Nazis stole the Jews’ wealth and property, even the gold from their teeth once they were dead? The Swiss authorities finally determined that survivors must be repaid, but that’s simply justice. I say racist because it’s a racist caricature of Jews to say they are materialistic profiteers who exaggerate their own suffering. But I want to be clear that for me, the Holocaust can’t be used to justify the actions of Israel. To insist that we have to support Israel because of the Holocaust is simply wrong.

[In fairness to Doga, Norman Finkelstein, himself the son of Holocaust survivors, wrote a book that supports Doga’s claim. The Holocaust Industry accuses certain Jewish organizations of “exploiting the Holocaust for political and financial ends” as this review puts it. According to Finkelstein, the $1.25 billion Swiss settlement I mention was little more than a scam to enrich these organizations.]

doga: Between the two World Wars, Germany had an economic crisis, and Hitler understood that Jews were the cause, so he defended his country. The Americans did the same against the Japanese [I think he means the wartime internment camps].

eatbees: That is racist propaganda, my friend. The real profiteers were capitalists and imperialists, whether it was the English and French who won the First World War, or the German capitalists who supported Hitler because he rebuilt the arms industry. If Jews were mixed up in that, it was through their profession as financiers, not because they were Jews. Capitalism has committed crimes against humanity, but Judaism no.

doga: All the same, I invite you to read the specialists. You’ll need to look for them in English. I have a text in front of me in Arabic by an English reserarcher named Michelle Renouf, who says some interesting things.

eatbees: [I look up Michelle Renouf as we are talking.] Doga, you seem to keep stumbling into people who are bizarre and almost Nazi. [“Last year, she attended a New Orleans conference where she shared the rostrum with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke…Germany’s neo-Nazi NDP and France’s National Front.”] I’ll say it again, you mustn’t rely only on people who are telling you what you want to hear.

doga: I want to hear more than “There’s no point discussing it”!

eatbees: We can always discuss. But I think the evidence is overwhelming. Analyze your own motivations, please. What’s pushing you to make these arguments?

doga: These people are talking about more than the Holocaust. I want you to understand that it’s important to criticize arguments built on falsehood and lies.

eatbees: Do you think I don’t understand that? I agree with you completely, but I assure you, those people are seen as extremists. Certain ones are confirmed racists. So be careful whom you choose as a friend. The enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend. Sometimes they’re the enemy of everyone.

doga: Of course you would say that, since criticism of Israel is considered a crime or even treason in the United States. Look at what’s happening to Jimmy Carter. Do you agree that someone who criticizes Israel should be accused of treason?

eatbees: Like Jimmy Carter?

doga: Or Michelle Renouf, or….

eatbees: You mustn’t put those two in the same basket! Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. Michelle Renouf hangs out with neo-Nazis. Comparing them is bizarre. I defend Jimmy Carter. I’ve done it here on my blog. He’s a hero for me because of his latest book, and for other reasons. Both my parents feel the same way. He’d be welcome in our home. We see him as a distinguished man we need to defend, because his thinking is balanced, and he’s courageous. A man named Dershowitz wanted to debate Carter, and Carter refused, not because Dershowitz is a Jew or even a Zionist, but because he’s disgusting. During the war in Lebanon, he wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times arguing that civilian supporters of Hezbollah deserve to die. He said the lives of some civilians are worth more than others. He meant that Israeli lives are worth more than Lebanese ones. Carter refused to debate him “even indirectly” and I applaud that.

doga: Almost all the Jews are like that….

eatbees: Don’t you hear your own prejudice? In my experience, that’s just not true. You musn’t put yourself in the company of people who use racist, self-promoting propaganda, because you open the door for people like Dershowitz to score points against you.

doga: If I can’t criticize a Jew in the U.S., what does that say!?

eatbees: Even in Israel, in the left-of-center newspaper Haaretz, you can find commentaries that criticize Israel or defend the Palestinians. And one of the best American journalists writing about Iraq, Nir Rosen, grew up in Israel but turned against Zionism.

doga: I want you to read this. [He sends me a link to the Mearsheimer and Walt article The Israel Lobby translated into French. He also sends a summary in La Vie Éco, a Moroccan economic magazine.]

eatbees: I read that a few months ago. I agree with its ideas. I tried to discuss it with you when I was still in Morocco. At the time, you didn’t want to get into it.

doga: I haven’t finished it yet.

eatbees: You need to distinguish the arguments and the motivations of each person. Hardcore Zionists love to put Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt in the same basket as David Irving, the Holocaust denier. You mustn’t do the same thing.

doga: I read without considering a person’s motivations. But I have a brain that can make distinctions, and I have confidence in my reason.

eatbees: I’ve noticed the Arabs sometimes take whatever ideas suit the argument, without worrying too much about where they came from, or even if they’re true. I think that’s a weakness.

doga: A law that forbids research into a subject will only heighten my curiosity about that subject. Since you’re talking about motivations, tell me the motivation for such a law.

eatbees: I told you, I’m against those laws, so how can I defend them? You’d be better off asking me about the motiviations of revisionists who want to take another look at a story that is, for me, established fact. Isn’t it better to move on? Can’t we look to the future for solutions, instead of always revisiting the injustices of the past?

doga: Those laws say that the people who break them are racists and extremists!

eatbees: Britain has very strong laws against libel. Because of its special history, Austria has laws against being a Nazi apologist. Those laws don’t exist in Canada or the U.S. I don’t think we need them. We can expose racists without preventing them from speaking. But I can understand how in Europe, which got into World War Two because of that sort of extreme racism, they’re more senstive on the subject.

doga: You accuse those people of being Nazis, but they refuse to be called that! If you’re against these laws, you should support Michelle Renouf, because one of her priorities is to eliminate those laws.

eatbees: I said certain ones are like Nazis, or associate with Nazis. When a person’s ideas resemble Nazi ideas, it’s obvious. But do you think they’re going to admit it? Maybe they don’t even see their own racism. It’s possible, human psychology is like that. Do you think Le Pen sees himself as a racist, an extremist? It’s Le Pen’s politics that make him racist, not what he calls himself. He wants to expel all non-citizens from France, and eliminate citizenship rights for their children born in France.

doga: America has red lines too. Look at the Palestinian resistance, or Hezbollah for that matter. They’re seen as terrorists!

eatbees: We don’t have laws limiting freedom of speech. Even racists like the KKK have the right to speak.

doga: You’re living in an illusion!

eatbees: I have the right to defend Hamas or Hezbollah. I’ve read bloggers and journalists who do it. What’s the illusion?

doga: Don’t you agree that the pressure placed on people who speak out against Israel is enough to be a limit on freedom of expression?

eatbees: Everyone knows that in American politics, Israel’s defenders are in a position of strength. And it’s true that Walt and Mearsheimer risked their reputations to write their article. But they can’t be fired from the universities where they teach because of their ideas. And they certainly aren’t going to jail. Nor is Nir Rosen going to jail for writing an article sympathetic to Hezbollah’s position. But in Morocco, a writer can be jailed for “harming” religion or the king, which is a subjective judgment. Here in the U.S., the only people in danger of going to jail are those who offer direct support to violent groups.

doga: Did you know that in the early 20th century, the Jews had the same ideas as the Nazis?

eatbees: What are you talking about? They wanted to exterminate themselves? Commit mass suicide?

doga: In 1806, a founder of the Zionist movement said that the blood of Jews is different from that of Germans. And Abraham Franksman [??] said that Jews are on the same level as God, so killing them means killing God. People say Hitler was crazy for having ideas like that!

eatbees: Carter accuses Israel of practicing apartheid in his latest book, and I agree with him. Zionism has elements of racism. But claiming one’s “race” is worth more than others isn’t the same as massacring the other “races” like Hitler did!

doga: Theodor Herzl said he wanted to massacre the Palestinians. You don’t think they’re doing that now?

eatbees: Herzl said that? Show me a quote.

doga: It was in 1897. Michelle Renouf cites it.

eatbees: I thought you were talking about Avigdor Lieberman for a minute. He’s a racist minister in Israel who wants to push all the Arabs out of the country. Give me the Herzl quote in context and I might believe it.

doga: You can look for it if you want. I read it in an Arab newspaper. I don’t think they publish lies.

eatbees: It’s true that the early leaders of the Zionist movement thought of Palestine as empty land. They didn’t think it was necessary to negotiate with the Arabs, because they imagined the land was uninhabited.

doga: That’s bizarre.

eatbees: When they saw people living there, they thought they were just nomads. All the Bedouins are nomads, right? Sure it’s bizarre, and it’s the original tragedy of the State of Israel, but that’s the way it is.

doga: You’re making me laugh. Don’t you think that slavishly supporting Israel, and considering Hamas as terrorists, and making war in Iraq, and accusing Iran of wanting nuclear weapons without any proof, and not asking the same question of Israel, and so on and so on, turns American democracy into a caricature, or a song that repeats endlessly?

eatbees: I couldn’t have said it better. But if our opponents repeat the same song endlessly, then we’re obliged to come up with arguments in response. Those arguments are beginning to be heard in the American political establishment, as you can see with Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer. Adding racist arguments to the mix won’t win you any friends. You’re better off choosing the strongest and fairest arguments. In my case, I’ve always said that the current policies of the U.S. go against our own principles of justice and human equality. To me, a man like Dershowitz who says that the life of an enemy is worth less than his own has crossed a red line and become immoral.

doga: So we need to defend democracy instead of blindly following Israeli policies?

eatbees: Absolutely, and I assure you that more and more Americans are saying that.

doga: You’ll agree that sincere individuals need to put calculations aside when they examine a problem?

eatbees: As long as we don’t check our intelligence at the door.

doga: I’m talking about calculations based on race, or strategic interest for that matter.

eatbees: I understand. But we need to realize that “others” like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, China, India, Russia and France all have their own calculations. It’s clear that Iran is benefiting from its calculations right now. And Saudi Arabia is making calculations by cozying up to Israel in secret.

doga: Of course when I talk to you, I do it as a human being, not as a Moroccan or Muslim. What do you think of Tariq Ramadan?

eatbees: I like his intellectual project a lot. It’s exactly what needs to happen. I was even wondering how I could study with him. He’s at Oxford, you know. The idea was for him to come to the U.S. as a professor, but Bush refused his visa, so he went to England instead.

doga: What do you like about him, exactly?

eatbees: His ideas on updating Islamic thought to show how Muslims can live comfortably in a modern and pluralistic society. Maybe it’s time now for us to turn our conversation to the idea of a progressive, pluralistic Islam. Most Westerners know nothing about Islam except what they see on television. They hear that Islamists have banned a magazine, or are demonstrating against caricatures, or have issued a fatwa calling for the death of a certain writer, and it gives ammunition to those who want to stir up hatred against Islam. I hope that Islamic leaders will see the advantage of defending the principle of freedom even when they don’t like how it expresses itself. Larbi criticized the PJD for its attacks on gays and for demanding that the film Marock be banned. But why are Islamists so reactionary? If one’s faith is strong, there’s no risk of losing it just by being exposed to other ways of life.

doga: Tariq Ramadan says nearly the same thing. He says the problem between secularism and Islam is that Islam is excluded. He invites others to join with Islam to help guide it on the road to modernity.

eatbees: That’s a good argument. I’ll add that Westerners need to work at least as hard as Muslims, because the West knows absolutely nothing about Islam. But I want to say that “Don’t touch my Qur’an—you don’t have the right to read it unless you convert to Islam” isn’t very appealing. On Nadia Lamlili’s blog, you can see that even an educated Muslim is surprised to hear that Christians and Jews can go to Paradise! And it’s clear that the PJD didn’t play the Nichane affair right, running for protection to a State they criticize for being corrupt.

doga: On the other hand, Ramadan accuses the Jews of being closed in on themselves, of being occupied with their own interests, and of imposing their thoughts on others rather than interesting themselves in justice, international equality and humanistic values.

eatbees: I can accept that as a critical, non-extremist view. I know of a progressive rabbi who says pretty much the same thing.

doga: The PJD published Nichane’s apology in its newspaper. The gesture means they believe in justice, and that Nichane must be given an opportunity.

eatbees: That’s good. Has Al Adl Wal Ihsane said anything?

doga: I don’t know.

eatbees: For me, the positive side of the Nichane case is that it’s opened up debate on the limits of free speech. I hope more Islamist politicians will step forward to defend freedom as an Islamic value. I hope they’ll see it as being in the interests of Muslims, a way of protecting their own rights even when they happen to be in the minority.

doga: I was hoping you would publish this conversation on your blog.

eatbees: I was thinking the same thing!