He was referring to the book ``The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics'' by French Moslem author Roger Garaudy which disputes the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust and questions the existence of gas chambers in Nazi death camps.
The book by Garaudy is available online at http://www.radioislam.org
, where there are two chapters specifically dealing with "Holocaust" revisionism, called "The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg" and "The Myth of the 'Holocaust'". This is not the result of any original research by Garaudy, but is a comprehensive account of the "Holocaust" revisionist position, which could be recommended to anyone wanting to find out the fundamentals of revisionism.
It should be pointed out that Garaudy, who must be a very old man by now, was originally the main theoretician of the French Communist Party, prior to the student unrest of 1968, after which he departed from a Stalinist position and became part of the New Left, which caused him to be expelled from the Communist Party. My first serious Marxist text I read as a teenager was by Garaudy in English translation, which was quite a brilliant book, although it was Stalinist orientated, so it is a mystery to me why he is now an avowed Moslem, which is very undialectical and anti-marxist.
I am not sure if he would identify with the Islamo-fascists, but I think that perhaps he became disillusioned with what could be the utopianism of a radical socialist position, and so therefore thought that by being a Moslem he was getting with the strength as far as an anti-capitalist position was concerned. It is, of course, a capitalist European culture that Garaudy was always opposed to, so he would not have any problem identifying with the generally anti-European Islamists.
I have thought that perhaps in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative that any form of socialism would be essentially utopian, and so a post-captialist ecologically viable society would be essentially fascistic, which may or may not be racialistic. But such a fascist society would be socially retrogressive, whereas it is necessary to be socially progressive in orientation, otherwise you simply become a reactionary with nothing new to offer. Therefore rather than give up a marxist perspective for some irrational religious cause, it is necessary to criticize capitalism from a radical neo-marxist perspective, and seek however possible radical social reform which takes into account the ecological imperative, without descending to fascist barbarism, in a spirit of social optimism.