I do not think it is correct to say that the recent conference in Terehan was convened to deny the facts of the "Holocaust". If anything it was convened to counter the myth which has been cultivated around the Holocaust: namely that the Holocaust constitutes an irrefutable and unambiguous justification for any and every act or policy of the State of Israel under the pretext that the alleged world complicity in the persecution and murder of millions in Europe-- many, if not most of which were defined as Jews for this purpose-- gives it a quasi-divine right to act above international law or the laws of nations.
In fact there is a difference between the facts of the mass murder perpetrated between 1939 and 1945 under the auspices of a European fascist regime operating in Europe and the premise of Israeli state ideology and action. If the State of Israel-- geographically a non-European state-- had or has a basis of action under international law or human rights principles (i.e. UN Charter), then such action could only be against certain European states and their legal successors. Instead the State of Israel pursues a policy of "collective guilt" against all countries which complain against or oppose, either passively or actively, its policies and actions. This doctrine of "collective guilt" is based on a distortion and a myth. Not only those meeting in Iran but those within and without Israel who oppose the aggressive seizure of territory from foreign countries by force of arms, the establishment and maintenance of racist, segregationist and (not forgetting that it was a policy of South Africa and not South Africa itself which the UN declared to be a violation of human rights and international law) apartheid policies, rightly attack this myth concocted and perpetuated to justify any act of the State of Israel.
In 1939 a European state armed to the teeth with the covert support of industrial and financial interests throughout Europe and North America commenced a war based on the myth that Bolshevism and Judaism, membership in the Sinti and Roma communities, homosexuals, and anyone else who was opposed to the "proper place" of this European state and its economic backers, must be destroyed or rendered harmless. They drew support from ultranationalist and fascist movements throughout Europe-- including those who called themselves Zionists. When the war was over and millions had met their death, the only group that survived to insist on its ultranationalist and fascist territorial ambitions were those who led the conquest of Palestine.
Today this group continues the alliance with the forces that supported the fascists in that European state. That European state has managed with great effort to suppress most of its fascist elements to become one of the most democratic states in Europe. Meanwhile the combination of ultranationalist and fascist myth-makers and industrial-military-financial forces are saturating the Near and Middle East and Central Asia with military forces which if allowed to pursue their stated goals may well bring us into a third world war.
The myths fabricated around the mass murders of world war II are not unlike the "dagger in the back" myth used to justify the war in 1939. They are not unlike the myths propagated by the Roman Catholic Church in order to motivate the Crusades-- a brutal, murderous series of actions subjugating the population of Palestine and the adjacent region.
Although the conference in Iran has had just as little impact in clarifying the issues obfuscated by the government of the State of Israel and its allies as most other attempts to inform people about the motives and risks of war in the region, it is a gross distortion to claim that the conference was convened to deny historical facts.
Perhaps such fora as HuD could contribute pressure on serious historians to distance themselves from state mythologies aimed at justifying conquest and human rights violations. One of the classical methods of refuting a myth is to show that it is based on inaccuracies and exaggerations or that source material is manipulated or that countervailing interpretations of the same facts are suppressed. Alas these are the only methods we have of refuting myths aside from point blank denial.
If however we do not want to deal with the reliability of data or its objective use, then we may certainly call into question the nature of the agent. It is not normally considered a defence for an assailant to argue that he is acting on behalf of someone who never gave him authorisation to so act or for an assailant to claim the right to "revenge" against third parties for acts not done to him or done by said third parties. The State of Israel is an assailant claiming the right to revenge for acts not done to it and against persons who were not even party to the acts alleged.
Either the facts are in dispute or the standing of the complainant. These are the rational avenues open to those who want to argue whether the myths of the holocaust as formulated and propagated under Israeli state policy are justifiable. There is every reason to believe that the myth is based on historical distortions by the State of Israel and that that state lacks standing to act in the way it does.