Coopting Holocaust Memory and Genocide Education: The 2000 Stockholm Declaration after a Quarter-Century, by Jeff Benvenuto. 2025. JOURNAL OF GENOCIDE RESEARCH (in press)
Holocaust Distortion Hoax: IHRA Holocaust Orthodoxy (Slightly) Questioned
The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) is a powerful international organization that drives nations (including Poland) to embrace and promote Holocaust supremacy over all other genocides. See:
In this article, author Jeff Benvenuto addresses the IHRA Holocaust-exclusivist approach. I focus on this.
HOLOCAUST DISTORTION HOAX: IHRA HOLOCAUST ORTHODOXY PROTECTED BY CENSORIOUS RHETORIC
Benvenuto perceptively writes,
“I argue that the IHRA’s rule-like proscription against Holocaust ‘distortion’ is a contestable interpretation of the genocide education norm that problematically narrows the scope of what can be said in public without risking censure.” (p. 1). A chilling effect!
“…this vague notion of Holocaust ‘distortion’ has emerged in conjunction with ‘new antisemitism’ to narrow the scope of what can be said about genocide in public (including classrooms) without risking censure or worse. This pedagogical rule-like proscription fosters a critically truncated and theoretically impoverished comparative methodology…” (p. 4). This is indoctrination, not education!
HOLOCAUST DISTORTION HOAX: IHRA HOLOCAUST ORTHODOXY IS THREATENED BY FREE INQUIRY
Author Benvenuto warns, “The proscription against Holocaust ‘distortion’ is exclusionary and prematurely rules out ‘the growing insertion of Holocaust issues into a large number of disparate events that have no connection to the genocide of Jews’.” (p. 19). (italics in original). Exactly!
“‘Distortion’ hinges upon the suspicion that ‘comparisons can turn into equations.’ …’the uniqueness of the Holocaust hides a fear that comparisons will relativize the Holocaust…’ Faced with the suspicious and sometimes paranoid belief that comparisons lead to equivalencies, the IHRA implores educators to be ‘especially cautious’ and ‘mindful’ of the risks of ‘distortion.’” (p. 19).
The message is clear. The Holocaust is and must remain above all other genocides.
HOLOCAUST DISTORTION HOAX: THE STANDARD JEWISH-SERVING VICTIM HIERARCHY
Benvenuto adds, “Secondly, calibrating normative standards of legitimacy to the apparent magnitude of the Holocaust invites an inherently hierarchical and inevitably competitive approach to comparisons. That is precisely what a multidirectional theory of Holocaust memory intends to avoid by rethinking comparisons through the interdisciplinary lenses of the humanities.” (p. 18).
So the usual Holocaust-serving victim hierarchies inevitable provoke pushback, including victimhood competition. And why not? Note also that “multidirectional theory” means nothing. Just because the Holocaust sometimes interacts with other genocides does not change the fact that the Holocaust remains dominant and all other genocides remain subordinate. See:
HOLOCAUST DISTORTION HOAX: “SOFT” CENSORSHIP ENFORCES STUDENT CONFORMITY TO HOLOCAUST SUPREMACY
Benvenuto comments, “…the IHRA’s obsession with delimiting the discursive boundaries of these norms, leaving many students with ‘the impression that they must think and react in a certain way…” (p. 21). If this is not Holocaust thought control, then what is?
THE JEWISH “OTHER” CONTRADICTS THE “JEWISH POLE” MANTRA
The author notes that, “After all, a sense of ‘othering’ is implicit in the seemingly innocuous choice of language distinguishing the Holocaust from ‘other’ genocides…” (p. 21).
Benvenuto adds, “The IHRA’s ‘best’ practice of drawing differences at the expense of commonalities is effectively promoting the cognitive habit of ‘othering’, thereby putting this revised interpretation of the genocide education norm at odds with the Stockholm Declaration’s principles.” (p. 4).
In other words, Jews have no problem “othering” themselves whenever it serves their purposes (as in promoting Holocaust supremacy) but otherwise relentlessly complain about being “othered”, as when they promote the notion of the “Jewish Pole”! Clearly, Jews have touted the “universalistic” imperatives of the Stockholm Declaration when convenient for them, and then flouted them when they do not.
