First of all it I necessary to mention that at the heart of the Jewish particularity is Jewish anguish and victimhood. Like the shared history itself, this distress may, but need not, correspond to reality. Jews have certainly suffered but their pain stays unexamined and mysterious. The Holocaust, now the example of Jewish pain, has long stopped to be a piece of history, and is now regarded by spiritual and material alike, as a piece of divinity – a sacred text almost – and consequently outside examination. And the suffering never ends. No matter how much Jews have suffered they are certainly not suffering now, but for many Jews their history of suffering is not just an inalienable past but also a possible future. So, no matter how safe Jews may be, many feel just a hair’s-breadth away from Auschwitz. Of course there are dissimilarities but there are also likenesses. National Socialism, like Zionism, also required to preserve the racial/ ethnic clarity of one group and to maintain the rights of that ethnic group over others, and National Socialism, like Zionism, also proposed an almost mystical attachment of that group to a land. Also, both National Socialism and Zionism shared a common interest – to separate Jews from non- Jews, in this case to eliminate Jews from Europe – and actively co-operated in the achievement of this aim. And if the similarity among these two ideas is just too great and too bitter to accept, one may ask what National Socialism with its uniforms, flags and mobilized youth must have looked like to those Germans, desperate after Versailles and the ravages of post-First World War Germany. Probably not so dissimilar from how the uniforms, flags and marching adolescents of pre- and post-state Zionism must have regarded to Jews after their history of misery, and particularly after the Holocaust.
The Holocaust, the example for all anti-Semitism and all Jewish suffering, is regarded as being beyond assessment and inspection. Questioning the Holocaust narrative is, at best, socially unacceptable, leading often to social barring and inequity, and, at worst, in some locations is illegal and matter to harsh punishment. Holocaust revisionist scientists, named Holocaust deniers by their adversaries, have confronted this. They do not deny an atrocious and widespread assault on Jews by the Nazi government but they do deny the Holocaust description as framed by present day organizations and elites. Purposely, their denial is restricted to three main areas. First, they deny that there ever was an authorized plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the Nazi system methodically and actually to get rid of every Jew in Europe; second, they deny that there ever subsisted dangerous gas-chambers; third, they claim that the numerals of Jewish victims of the Nazi assault have been greatly overstated.
Whether those who question the Holocaust narrative are revisionist scholars striving to find the truth and shamelessly persecuted for opposing a powerful faction, or whether they are crazy Jew-haters denying a tragedy and defaming its victims, the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust.