Some observations of the postings on the thread so far.

McGrath of Harlow has presented an excellent analogy to the worth of the discussion/debate on the motives of denying the Holocaust. In Australia we've been exposed to similar discussion/debate over whether white settlers did/didn't massacre Aboriginal people in vast numbers and whether or not there was 'official' sanction to the murders. The context of the Australian debate/discussion is known as "The History Wars" and the attempted revisionism is mostly pushed by (what in Australia is called) the conservative ("reactionary"?) Right. Relative to the European Holocaust, they could be lumped as "deniers".

Many conservatives are quite content with what they see as the status quo and wish to avoid scrutiny of the history that lead to their current (and comfortable) positions, although many Jewish Israelis (as distinct from the Palestinian Israelis, who may be Christian or Muslim) may not regard their current position as particularly "comfortable". Limiting the time-depth of their examination (as has been done in one post above) can only lend support to a lack of understanding of the issues involved, which is used by reactionaries to justify the status quo.

While Alaska has been recently mentioned as a possible destination for Zionists, there were other places considered in the past; Kenya, the Kimberley (NW Australia) and SW Tasmania are three that come to mind. I think it no coincidence that all were, at the time, considered parts of the British Empire. And I can't recall anybody being taken seriously as Holocaust Deniers before the (very) anglosaxons started the process.

Cheers, Rowan