Betty Levi, geboren Lindenberger, geb. 10.3.1882, deportiert nach Auschwitz am 11.7.1942, Todesdatum unbekannt.
Betty Levi, Tochter von Isaac und Ernestine (Esther) Lindenberger, stammte aus dem ostpreußischen Labiau, einem Zentrum der Fischindustrie. Sie wurde im Standesamt als Berta registriert, nannte sich jedoch zeitlebens Betty Lindenberger, später Betty Levi.
Berufliche Gründe brachten einen Ortswechsel mit sich; der Vater wurde in Berlin Geschäftsinhaber in der Fischverarbeitungs- und -konservierungsbranche. Betty erhielt eine profunde, vielleicht professionell geplante, Ausbildung als Pianistin, die sie bei ihrer Eheschließung abbrach.
Die 22-jährige Berlinerin heiratete 1905 den neun Jahre älteren Altonaer Rechtsanwalt Dr. Moses Levi; die Brautleute kannten sich seit einem Hochzeitsfest, an dem sie als Gäste teilgenommen hatten. Moses Levi gehörte einer alteingesessenen Altonaer Familie an, deren Stammbaum mütterlicherseits bis in die Anfänge der Altonaer jüdischen Gemeinde zurückreichte und in direkter Linie und verwandtschaftlichen Verzweigungen eine Reihe von Rabbinern hervorgebracht hatte.
Das Ehepaar Levi bekam vier Kinder, geboren zwischen 1908 und 1916, und wohnte zunächst in einer Etage in der Königstraße 76, bis es 1920 das Haus Klopstockstraße 23, in bester Ottenser Elblage, erwarb.
Betty Levi lebte das Leben einer angesehenen bürgerlichen Hausfrau. Sie zog vier Kinder groß, führte den Haushalt, war eine Meisterin im Kochen und im Backen, widmete sich in Mußestunden dem Klavierspiel und ihrer zweiten Begabung, der Anfertigung kunstvoller Handarbeiten. Sie war eine Perfektionistin und legte in allen Dingen größtes Gewicht auf Sorgfalt in der Ausführung. Sie war auch eine Frau, die sich nicht duckte, als die Jahre der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft anbrachen. So weigerte sie sich etwa beharrlich, den Namen des neuernannten “Adolf-Hitler-Platzes” zu verwenden oder auf ihn zu reagieren.
Im Mai 1932 verheiratete sich die älteste Tochter Elisabeth mit einem Studienfreund und zog mit ihm nach Kopenhagen. Die jüngste Tochter Herta musste im Herbst 1933 das Gymnasium verlassen; sie ging nach Berlin, wo sich ein Ausbildungsweg in der angestrebten musikpädagogischen Richtung auch ohne Abitur gefunden hatte. Der Sohn Walter wanderte 1936 nach England aus, um dort sein technisches Studium abzuschließen, was ihm in Hamburg nicht mehr möglich war.
Am 4. März 1938 wurde Betty Levi Witwe. Ihr Mann, der renommierte Strafverteidiger und ehemalige Notar Dr. Moses Levi, der 1933 Berufsverbot erhalten hatte, erlag einem Krebsleiden. 1939 konnten die Töchter Käthe und Herta mit einem Haushaltsvisum nach England emigrieren. Versuche, auch für die Mutter, die qualifizierte Hausfrau, eine Einreisegenehmigung zu erlangen, scheiterten an deren Alter.
So blieb Betty Levi allein zurück; ihre Lebensumstände wurden hoffnungslos, sie litt Hunger. Eigentümerin ihres Wohnhauses war seit 1938 die Hansestadt Hamburg, die es per Zwangsverkauf für einen geringfügigen Betrag an sich gebracht hatte; das enteignete Haus stand den geplanten Monumentalbauten der “Gau-Hauptstadt” im Wege.
Was von Geld und Vermögen in Sachwerten noch vorhanden war, hatte sie ebenfalls abliefern müssen.
Die einzige, die ihr vor und nach der “Übersiedlung” ins Hamburger jüdische Altersheim Sedanstraße 23 beistand, war eine couragierte ehemalige Hausangestellte, die ihr die Treue hielt und sie ein wenig unterstützen konnte.
Am 11. Juli 1942 wurde Betty Levi, sechzigjährig, von Hamburg aus ins Vernichtungslager Auschwitz deportiert.
Seit dem 27. Januar 1997, dem Gedenktag zur Befreiung des Lagers Auschwitz, gibt es in Sichtweite der Klopstockstraße ein Straßenschild “Betty-Levi-Passage”, das nach einer Feierstunde im Altonaer Rathaus von der Tochter Herta Grove aus Philadelphia enthüllt wurde.
Diese Ehrung Betty Levis geschah zugleich stellvertretend für die große Gruppe der Hamburger und Altonaer Opfer, die als Hausfrauen und Mütter ein alltägliches Leben als Gleiche unter Gleichen führten, bis ihnen durch Staatsverordnung Menschenwürde und Lebensrecht genommen wurden.
Daß die Juden, wenn sie wollten – oder, wenn man sie dazu zwänge, wie es die Antisemiten zu wollen scheinen –, jetzt schon das Übergewicht, ja ganz wörtlich die Herrschaft über Europa haben könnten, steht fest; daß sie nicht darauf hinarbeiten und Pläne machen, ebenfalls. Einstweilen wollen und wünschen sie vielmehr, sogar mit einiger Zudringlichkeit, in Europa, von Europa ein- und aufgesaugt zu werden, sie dürsten darnach, endlich irgendwo fest, erlaubt, geachtet zu sein und dem Nomadenleben, dem ‘ewigen Juden’ ein Ziel zu setzen –; und man sollte diesen Zug und Drang wohl beachten und ihm entgegenkommen. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Als Rafle du Vélodrome d’Hiver (frz. Razzia der Winter-Radrennbahn) wird die am 16. und 17. Juli 1942 in Paris durchgeführte Massenfestnahme durch die französische Polizei (auf Anordnung des Generalsekretärs der Polizei des Vichy-Regimes René Bousquet – der nach dem Krieg eine steile Karriere machte und leider 1993 erschossen wurde, bevor man ihn den Prozess machen konnte) und darauf folgende Deportation von 13.000 französischen Juden, darunter über 4.000 Kinder, in die Gaskammern nach Auschwitz bezeichnet.
Die aktive Beteiligung der französischen Vichy-Regierung sowie französischer Polizeibeamter – ohne ausdrücklichen Befehl der nationalsozialistischenBesatzungsmacht – an diesem Verbrechen war jahrzehntelang ein Tabu in Frankreich.
Am 16. Juli 1995 entschuldigte sich Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac öffentlich im Namen der französischen Republik.
“Von diesem Moment an konnte man beginnen, echte Fragen zu stellen, wurde den Opfern der Opfer-Status zuerkannt. Erst dann konnte die Arbeit der Erinnerung, der historischen Auseinandersetzung und die Trauerarbeit der jüdischen Familien wirklich beginnen. Ich nenne das eine „Befriedung“. Denn seit der Erklärung des Staatspräsidenten Jacques Chirac fühlen sich viele Juden mit ihrer Geschichte versöhnt, mit der Geschichte ihres Landes, des Landes, in dem sie leben.”, bemerkte Jacques Fredj, Direktor des Mémorial de la Shoah, ein Gedenk-, Forschungs- und Dokumentationszentrum zur Geschichte des Holocaust.
Jacques Chirac mit der französischen Politikerin, einstigen Präsidentin des Europäischen Parlamentes und Auschwitz-Überlebende Simone Veil vor dem Pariser Denkmal Mur des Noms (Mauer der Namen)
***
Am 16. Juli 1995, hielt der französische Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac eine sehr bewegende Rede, in der er auf die Verstrickungen des französischen Staates in dieses Verbrechen einging.
Rede des französischen Staatspräsidenten Jacques Chirac
Monsieur le Maire,
Monsieur le Président,
Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,
Monsieur le Grand Rabbin,
Mesdames, Messieurs,
Il est, dans la vie d’une nation, des moments qui blessent la mémoire, et l’idée que l’on se fait de son pays.
Ces moments, il est difficile de les évoquer, parce que l’on ne sait pas toujours trouver les mots justes pour rappeler l’horreur, pour dire le chagrin de celles et ceux qui ont vécu la tragédie. Celles et ceux qui sont marqués à jamais dans leur âme et dans leur chair par le souvenir de ces journées de larmes et de honte.
Il est difficile de les évoquer, aussi, parce que ces heures noires souillent à jamais notre histoire, et sont une injure à notre passé et à nos traditions. Oui, la folie criminelle de l’occupant a été secondée par des Français, par l’Etat français.
Il y a cinquante-trois ans, le 16 juillet 1942, 450 policiers et gendarmes français, sous l’autorité de leurs chefs, répondaient aux exigences des nazis.
Ce jour-là, dans la capitale et en région parisienne, près de dix mille hommes, femmes et enfants juifs furent arrêtés à leur domicile, au petit matin, et rassemblés dans les commissariats de police.
On verra des scènes atroces: les familles déchirées, les mères séparées de leurs enfants, les vieillards – dont certains, anciens combattants de la Grande Guerre, avaient versé leur sang pour la France – jetés sans ménagement dans les bus parisiens et les fourgons de la Préfecture de Police.
On verra, aussi, des policiers fermer les yeux, permettant ainsi quelques évasions.
Pour toutes ces personnes arrêtées, commence alors le long et douloureux voyage vers l’enfer. Combien d’entre-elles ne reverront jamais leur foyer? Et combien, à cet instant, se sont senties trahies? Quelle a été leur détresse?
La France, patrie des Lumières et des Droits de l’Homme, terre d’accueil et d’asile, la France, ce jour-là, accomplissait l’irréparable. Manquant à sa parole, elle livrait ses protégés à leurs bourreaux.
Conduites au Vélodrome d’hiver, les victimes devaient attendre plusieurs jours, dans les conditions terribles que l’on sait, d’être dirigées sur l’un des camps de transit – Pithiviers ou Beaune-la-Rolande – ouverts par les autorités de Vichy.
L’horreur, pourtant, ne faisait que commencer.
Suivront d’autres rafles, d’autres arrestations. A Paris et en province. Soixante-quatorze trains partiront vers Auschwitz. Soixante-seize mille déportés juifs de France n’en reviendront pas.
Nous conservons à leur égard une dette imprescriptible.
La Thora fait à chaque juif devoir de se souvenir. Une phrase revient toujours qui dit: “N’oublie jamais que tu as été un étranger et un esclave en terre de Pharaon”.
Cinquante ans après, fidèle à sa loi, mais sans esprit de haine ou de vengeance, la Communauté juive se souvient, et toute la France avec elle. Pour que vivent les six millions de martyrs de la Shoah. Pour que de telles atrocités ne se reproduisent jamais plus. Pour que le sang de l’holocauste devienne, selon le mot de Samuel Pisar, le “sang de l’espoir”.
Quand souffle l’esprit de haine, avivé ici par les intégrismes, alimenté là par la peur et l’exclusion. Quand à nos portes, ici même, certains groupuscules, certaines publications, certains enseignements, certains partis politiques se révèlent porteurs, de manière plus ou moins ouverte, d’une idéologie raciste et antisémite, alors cet esprit de vigilance qui vous anime, qui nous anime, doit se manifester avec plus de force que jamais.
En la matière, rien n’est insignifiant, rien n’est banal, rien n’est dissociable. Les crimes racistes, la défense de thèses révisionnistes, les provocations en tout genre – les petites phrases, les bons mots – puisent aux mêmes sources.
Transmettre la mémoire du peuple juif, des souffrances et des camps. Témoigner encore et encore. Reconnaître les fautes du passé, et les fautes commises par l’Etat. Ne rien occulter des heures sombres de notre Histoire, c’est tout simplement défendre une idée de l’Homme, de sa liberté et de sa dignité. C’est lutter contre les forces obscures, sans cesse à l’oeuvre.
Cet incessant combat est le mien autant qu’il est le vôtre.
Les plus jeunes d’entre nous, j’en suis heureux, sont sensibles à tout ce qui se rapporte à la Shoah. Ils veulent savoir. Et avec eux, désormais, de plus en plus de Français décidés à regarder bien en face leur passé.
La France, nous le savons tous, n’est nullement un pays antisémite.
En cet instant de recueillement et de souvenir, je veux faire le choix de l’espoir.
Je veux me souvenir que cet été 1942, qui révèle le vrai visage de la “collaboration”, dont le caractère raciste, après les lois anti-juives de 1940, ne fait plus de doute, sera, pour beaucoup de nos compatriotes, celui du sursaut, le point de départ d’un vaste mouvement de résistance.
Je veux me souvenir de toutes les familles juives traquées, soustraites aux recherches impitoyables de l’occupant et de la milice, par l’action héroïque et fraternelle de nombreuses familles françaises.
J’aime à penser qu’un mois plus tôt, à Bir Hakeim, les Français libres de Koenig avaient héroïquement tenu, deux semaines durant, face aux divisions allemandes et italiennes.
Certes, il y a les erreurs commises, il y a les fautes, il y a une faute collective. Mais il y a aussi la France, une certaine idée de la France, droite, généreuse, fidèle à ses traditions, à son génie. Cette France n’a jamais été à Vichy. Elle n’est plus, et depuis longtemps, à Paris. Elle est dans les sables libyens et partout où se battent des Français libres. Elle est à Londres, incarnée par le Général de Gaulle. Elle est présente, une et indivisible, dans le coeur de ces Français, ces “Justes parmi les nations” qui, au plus noir de la tourmente, en sauvant au péril de leur vie, comme l’écrit Serge Klarsfeld, les trois-quarts de la communauté juive résidant en France, ont donné vie à ce qu’elle a de meilleur. Les valeurs humanistes, les valeurs de liberté, de justice, de tolérance qui fondent l’identité française et nous obligent pour l’avenir.
Ces valeurs, celles qui fondent nos démocraties, sont aujourd’hui bafouées en Europe même, sous nos yeux, par les adeptes de la “purification ethnique”. Sachons tirer les leçons de l’Histoire. N’acceptons pas d’être les témoins passifs, ou les complices, de l’inacceptable.
C’est le sens de l’appel que j’ai lancé à nos principaux partenaires, à Londres, à Washington, à Bonn. Si nous le voulons, ensemble nous pouvons donner un coup d’arrêt à une entreprise qui détruit nos valeurs et qui, de proche en proche risque de menacer l’Europe tout entière.
Human rights NGOs from around the globe have joined hands to organize the 2nd Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy.
To take place on March 8-9, 2010 – in parallel and to enhance the main annual session of the UN Human Rights Council – this unique assembly of renowned human rights defenders, dissidents and experts will feature victim testimonies, shine a spotlight on urgent human rights issues and situations, and call on governments to guarantee freedom of the internet for democracy and human rights activists.
•DEFENDING ETHNIC MINORITIESRebiya Kadeer, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Uighur human rights hero
•ATROCITIES IN SUDANJan Pronk, former UN Secretary-General Special Representative in Sudan
•EQUALITY FOR WOMENMassouda Jalal, former Afghan Minister of Women Affairs, first female presidential candidate
•THE FUTURE OF DISSENTYang Jianli, 1989 Tiananmen Square Hero, founder of Foundation for China in the 21st Century
•THE BURMESE JUNTA vs. AUNG SAN SUU KYIBo Kyi, Burmese dissident and 2008 winner of Human Rights Watch Award
•COMBATING CONTEMPORARY SLAVERYSimon Deng, former Sudanese Slave
•OPPRESSION IN TIBETPhuntsok Nyidron, Buddhist nun, longest-serving Tibetan political prisoner, jailed for recording songs of freedom, winner of 1995 Reebok Human Rights Award
•NON-VIOLENT PROTESTMatteo Mecacci, Italian MP, OSCE Rapporteur on human rights and democracy, activist
•REPRESSION IN LATIN AMERICA Tamara Suju, Venezuelan human rights lawyer
•PRISONER FROM BIRTHDonghyuk Shin, survivor of North Korean prison camp
•“DEFAMATION OF RELIGION” vs. FREE SPEECHOwaisAslam Ali, Secretary General of Pakistan Press Foundation
The following opinion article by World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder was published by the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on the eve of Pope Benedict’s visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome.
When a Catholic bishop visits the main synagogue in his diocese it is first and foremost a mark of friendship and an expression of the good relationship between the two local religious communities. Things are somewhat different when such a visit occurs in Rome, as the Bishop of Rome is also pontiff of the Catholic Church, representing more than a billion Catholics world-wide.
It is therefore important to Jews around the world what Pope Benedict XVI has to say this Sunday in Rome’s main synagogue on the Jewish-Catholic relationship and on a number of sensitive issues has already caused a sensation during his pontificate thus far.
Benedict XVI has often emphasized how important good relations to Judaism are to him. Through his trips to Israel, to Auschwitz, and his visits to synagogues in Cologne and New York, he has proved that he is sincere.
The German-born Pope has always been an outstanding theologian and a sharp-witted thinker. And yet, sometimes we see another Benedict, one who surprises us with decisions that – even for the well-meaning amongst us – are difficult to comprehend.
We Jews are generally very sensitive folk; some would say over-sensitive – although history has given us enough reason to be vigilant, given that anti-Semitism was very widespread and deeply rooted in the higher echelons of the Christian churches until a few decades ago.
Moreover, we Jews are an emotional people, and in public life we don’t always judge a statement or a decision made by the Pope by purely rational or intellectual criteria which perhaps are the hallmarks of a theological seminary. We pay close attention to gestures and symbols, especially from a Pope of German origin.
And we are quick to interpret his decisions in a certain way, even when they do not appear entirely obvious to us, because we always fear that others will deliberately interpret them in a way that one could regard as offensive to us.
All of this wouldn’t matter much had not dissent and controversies between our religions often served as justification for exclusion, persecution, and even violence. We need to make sure that we overcome former divisions and do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Certain reasoning and decision-making by the Pope that is perfectly logical within the framework of Catholic theology and teaching can have a completely different meaning for the outside world (the same also applies to Jewish thinking), hence the need to explain and communicate these decisions in a comprehensible fashion.
When the Pope allows the use of the Good Friday Prayer of the old Tridentine liturgy, which calls for Jews to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Savior of all men, some of us are deeply hurt.
When the Pope decides to lift the excommunication of bishops of the ultra-conservative and anti-Semitic Society of St. Pius X, among them a notorious Holocaust denier, we are upset.
When we have the impression that the beatification process of Pope Pius XII is being rushed through before all the documentation kept by the Vatican on this pontificate is revealed, many of us are disturbed. During that Pope’s pontificate, six million Jews in Europe were murdered by the Nazis, and there is an on-going debate about whether Pius XII really did all in his power to save at least some of them.
Holocaust survivors in particular feel upset when “heroic virtues” are accorded to Pius XII, even though that may make perfect sense within the inner-Catholic framework and may have nothing to do with his actions during World War II. To be clear: is it neither up to us Jews, nor to other outsiders, to decide who should be declared a hero or a saint of the Catholic Church. I also do not presume to be in a position to render a final judgment on Pius’ actions – or inaction – during World War II.
Yet those who view Pius XII and his behavior during that period critically – among them many historians – should be heard before irreversible decisions are taken hastily. Until all papers relating to Pius XII during the crucial period are accessible, the Vatican would be well advised to pause for a moment. Otherwise, even Catholics might have great trouble in recognizing the “heroic virtues” of Pius XII, and the reputation of the present Pope would consequently also suffer some damage.
Despite all these differences in opinion between Catholics and Jews – and it is only normal that they exist – the relationship between Jews and the Vatican is based on a solid foundation. We have managed, since the 1965 Declaration Nostra Aetate, to maintain a dialogue based on mutual trust. This dialogue is much more advanced than that with other Christian denominations, or with Islam.
I harbor no doubts whatever about the positive attitude and open-mindedness of Pope Benedict XVI vis-à-vis the Jews. He is more than welcome in our synagogues and I hope there will be many more such important occasions in the future.
However, on Sunday, when he pays a visit to Rome’s main synagogue on the invitation of the local Jewish community, we would welcome a few illuminating answers to some of the questions I outlined above. That could help dispel some of the irritations of the past months that have unnecessarily strained Jewish-Catholic relations.
Many Jews would recognize that as a small “heroic virtue” of the Pope.
The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and – despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict – they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies.
While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.
On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime’s genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Efforts at mass murder directed at Israel and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur flow from the same mindset.
Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the “twin fascisms” – Bechri’s term – that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s “twin fascisms” also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds – a Muslim but non-Arab people – in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers – another non-Arab Muslim group – in Algeria.)
But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power – in oil, money and strategic territories – and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.
Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s “peace” partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a “right of return” that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the “moderate” Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, “We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.”) Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But — already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.
President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, “Bam’s Darfur Sins,” in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.
In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance — The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both “news stories” and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.
Kristoff generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide.
Several years ago, the Times‘ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.
But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.
For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate “dialogue” with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government – in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.
Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.
Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.
But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.
Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews – as in his 2002 statement that “if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) – was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.
Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children – in its schools and on children’s television – that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.
European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.
Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment — in words and deeds – to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in “peace” talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.
Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.
The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people’s annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today’s geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.
Ort: Presse- und Besucherzentrum, Raum 4, im Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Eingang Reichstagufer 14, 10117 Berlin
Im Jahre 2001 fand im südafrikanischen Durban die „UN-Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus” statt. Die Veranstaltung entwickelte sich zu einer Plattform hasserfüllter Agitation gegen Israel und die Juden, während die Diktaturen dieser Welt sich gegenseitig blütenreine Westen attestierten.
Die für April 2009 angekündigte „Durban Review Conference” wird ihrem Namen als Folgekonferenz leider mehr als gerecht werden. Neben der üblichen Dämonisierung Israels („Apartheid”) werden nunmehr auch Angriffe auf die Presse-, Meinungs- und Redefreiheit an Bedeutung gewinnen. Unter dem Vorwand des Kampfes gegen religiöse Intoleranz (und zwar nur gegenüber dem Islam) werden die Menschenrechte Schritt für Schritt pervertiert und in ein Unterdrückungsinstrumentarium im Namen der Religion umfunktioniert.
Diese gefährlichen Umdeutungen stellen demokratische Staaten vor große Herausforderungen. Die Grundlagen der offenen Gesellschaft dürfen nicht zur Disposition stehen! Angesichts des neuen Vorstoßes von Durban II wäre eine unmissverständliche Reaktion überfällig. Daher fordern die Initiator/inn/en und Unterzeicher/innen des Aufrufs die Bundesregierung und Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten auf, Durban II zu boykottieren.
Zur Initiative „Boykottiert Durban II!”
Der französische Schriftsteller Pascal Bruckner gab im Sommer letzten Jahres mit seiner Forderung nach einem Boykott der Durban II Konferenz den Anstoß für diese Initiative, der sich mehr als 30 Journalist/inn/en, Publizist/inn/en, Wissenschaftler/innen und Künstler/innen aus Europa, den USA und dem Nahen Osten anschlossen, darunter Lars Gustafsson, Jeffrey Herf, Benny Morris, Peter Schneider, Seyran Ates, Necla Kelek, Matthias Küntzel, Sharon Adler, Prof. Arno Lustiger und Ralph Giordano. Der Boykott-Appell hat weit über 1000 Unterschriften erhalten. Er wird am 12. März der Bundesregierung und den Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten übergeben werden.
Zum Abschluss der Kampagne findet eine Pressekonferenz statt, auf der Caroline Fourest und weitere Referent/inn/en für die Notwendigkeit des Boykotts einer solchen Veranstaltung argumentieren werden.
Teilnehmer/innen der Konferenz:
– Caroline Fourest, Autorin und Publizistin, Paris
– Nasrin Amirsedghi; Publizistin, Mainz
– Alex Feuerherdt; Journalist, Bonn
– Klaus Faber; Staatssekretär a. D., Potsdam
– Anetta Kahane; Stiftungsvorstandvorsitzende (Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung), Berlin
Moderation: Thierry Chervel; Chefredakteur des Online-Kulturmagazins Perlentaucher, Berlin
Kooperationspartner: Koordinierungsrat deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus; Group of 25th of November u. Föderation unabh. NGOs, Suleymaniya, Kurdistan/Nordirak; Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin e.V. (MFFB).
Pope Benedict XVI is under increasing pressure following his decision to revoke the excommunication of several leaders of the ultra-conservative Society of Pius X, among them a Holocaust denier.
Several Catholic bishops expressed their unease over Benedict’s decision ten days ago to allow back in Richard Williamson and others into the Catholic Church. Williamson recently denied that the Holocaust occurred and said that Nazi Germany had never used gas chambers.
Israel’s minister for religious affairs, Yitzhak Cohen, has threatened to suspend relations with the Vatican, the German news magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ reports. Cohen said he recommended “completely cutting off connections to a body in which Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are members.” The Chief Rabbinate of Israel last week broke off official ties with the Vatican to protest the Pope’s decision.
British-born Richard Williamson is one of four bishops who are members of the Society of Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic order, whose excommunication was lifted a week ago. Williamson, who now lives in Argentina, had claimed in a television interview that historical evidence was “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler … I believe there were no gas chambers”. Williamson was excommunicated 20 years ago after being ordained a bishop by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent.
The Vatican said it had been unaware of Williamson’s views on the Holocaust when the decision was made to readmit the group, and the Pope quickly distanced himself from the comments and expressed “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews. However, condemnation from Jewish groups was widespread.
am 27. Januar 2009 findet der diesjährige Auschwitz-Gedächtnistag statt.
Ich möchte Sie aus diesem Anlass auf die Holocaust-Überlebende Frau Fanny Englard hinweisen, die für Interviews zur Verfügung steht.
Frau Englard, geboren 1925 in Köln, ist Mitglieder der Organisation of Former Nazi Prisoners Tel Aviv und Leiterin der Organisation Perpetuation of Memory of the Holocaust. Sie lebt in der Nähe von Tel Aviv, ist über Email nicht zu erreichen, erlaubte mir aber, Ihnen ihre Telefonnummer weiterzugeben: 00972 – 3 96 46 438.
Frau Englard wurde am 4. Dezember 1941 von Hamburg aus (gemeinsam mit dem Hamburger Rabbi Dr. Carlebach) in das KZ Jungfernhof bei Riga deportiert. Sie überlebte das Ghetto Riga und das KZ Stutthof.
Frau Englard gehört zu den wenigen Holocaust-Überlebenden, die sich intensiv mit dem islamischen Antisemitismus beschäftigen und die Welt hierüber aufzuklären suchen. Sie ist zu einer Stellungnahme zum gegenwärtigen Gaza-Konflikt bereit.
Am 17. 10. 2008 erklärte sie in einem Brief:
Ich bin als 20-jährige am 8. Mai 1945 aus der Hölle befreit worden und habe meine Familie gesucht, aber ohne Erfolg. Denn mit der Zeit musste ich mich damit abfinden, dass mein Vater im Ghetto Warschau sein Leben lassen musste. Meine Mutter wurde mit meinem 10-jährigen Bruder – und mit der Großmutter, Tanten und Kusinen – in den Gaskammern von Belzec (Polen) vergast. Zwei Brüder, 15 und 13 Jahre alt, wurden in Weißrussland nicht weit von Minsk im Walde Bayoutschina 1942 erschossen. …
Ich kam 1947 im Mai in das Land Israel – damals britisches Mandat – und heiratete, um eine neue Familie zu gründen als Ersatz für die ermordete Familie, die dem Judenhass zum Opfer gefallen war. Hier in Israel haben viele Holocaustüberlebende eine neue Familie (als Ersatz für ihre ermordeten Familien) gegründet und wir haben nicht die neuen Familien gegründet, um sie dem Kriege zu opfern, zu dem uns der Judenhass von Hitlers islamistischen Erben immer wieder provoziert.
Dieser Judenhass zwingt uns zum Lebenskampf, der kein Krieg ist, um andere zu töten. Es ist ein Lebenskampf für die sichere Zukunft der neuen Familie. Wir haben doch nicht überlebt und eine neue Familie gegründet, um sie dem Judenhass wieder zu opfern.
Weiter unten habe ich eine von Fanny Englard verfasste Presseerklärung über die antisraelischen Demonstrationen in Deutschland dokumentiert.
Falls Sie Fragen haben sollten, stehe ich Ihnen gern zur Verfügung.
Presseerklärung vom 8. Januar 2009 zu den antiisraelischen Demonstrationen in Deutschland
Die Stimme der Shoah-Überlebenden
Israels Regierung ist für unseren Schwur NIE WIEDER verantwortlich. Nachdem Hamas acht Jahre lang Israel mit Raketen provoziert hatte, ermahnte das Gedenke NIE WIEDER Israel an seine Pflicht.
Und wer hat ein Recht, sich unserem Schwur entgegenzustellen, wenn die Hamas Israel zum Lebenskampf – Sein oder nicht Sein – zwingt?
Wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne und wo Raketen fliegen, fließen Tränen – auf beiden Seiten.
Und die Stimme Deutschlands?
Wo ist sie, wenn Hitlers islamistische Erben (zu denen auch die Hamas gehört) in den Straßen Deutschlands gegen Israel mit dem Vergleich GAZA/SHOAH demonstrieren?
Ist dies etwa im Sinne Deutschlands – Missbrauch der Shoah zum Vergleich mit der Situation in Gaza?
Wer sich diesem Vergleich nicht entgegenstellt, gibt dem antisemitischen Islamismus die Legitimation zur Verfälschung der Tatsache der Shoah.
Israel will Frieden, aber wo Hass gesät wird, kann man keinen Frieden ernten und die Juden heute als ein freies Volk wollen sich nicht wehrlos diesem Hass beugen.
Sind wir deshalb als Kriegsverbrecher anzuklagen?
Fanny Englard, Perpetuation of Memory of the Holocaust, Moshav Beth Chanan, 76868 Israel, Tel.: 00972 – 3 96 46 438
Jacob Silberstein, Organisation of Former Nazi Prisoners Tel Aviv
January 5, 2009 – France – A burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of a synagogue in Toulouse while the rabbi was giving a class inside. Another car was prepared for a second attack, but was abandoned after an alarm scared off the attackers.
As Israel acts to defend its citizens against Hamas rocket fire and terrorism from Gaza, Jews around the world have come under attack. Jews in Europe have been threatened and beaten on the street, and synagogues firebombed.
“Jews to the gas chambers” has been chanted at anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe and similar calls for death to Jews have been heard across the Arab and Muslim world.
Some recent manifestations include:
January 11, 2009 – France – Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in Saint Denis, a northern suburb of Paris. The fire-bombs bounced off the reinforced window and caused damage to an adjacent Jewish restaurant.
January 7, 2009 – France – In Paris, a 15-year-old Jewish teenager was beaten by a gang of youths, including three schoolmates, who said they were avenging the Palestinians.
January 6, 2009 – Belgium – Four Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in Schaerbeek.
January 6, 2009 – Turkey – An Israeli basketball team fled from the court into the dressing room after the crowd became threatening, calling them “killers” and shouting “death to Jews.”
January 5, 2009 – Sweden – A Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue in Helsingborg.
January 3, 2009 – United Kingdom – Assailants tried to burn a synagogue in the Brondesbury section of London.
December 31, 2008 – United Kingdom – A Jewish man was pulled from a car in London and beaten by three men, reportedly of Arab descent. That same day, Jewish shops were attacked by Arab youths who shouted anti-Israel slogans.
December 31, 2008 – Denmark – A Dane of Palestinian descent shot two Israelis in a shopping mall in Odense where they worked.
Violence against Jews and Jewish institutions has occurred mostly in Western Europe. The violence often is incited by hate speech at demonstrations after which individuals have sought out Jewish targets.
Among the most prevalent expressions of anti-Semitic hate speech is equating Israel with the Nazi regime. The widespread Holocaust and Nazi analogies employed at global demonstrations go well beyond legitimate criticism of Israel into outright anti-Semitism.
France is already commonly known as Eurabia and Britain’s capital is now known as Londonistan. Both have unfortunately lost their true liberal-democratic identities and pathetically neither seem to mind it. But where have the Napoleons and Churchills gone? We guess we’ll find them embedded in some old history books…
An op-ed by David A. Harris Executive Director, American Jewish Committee The Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2009
There is an interesting juxtaposition this month.
As Israel pursues its military operation against Hamas, preparations are under way around the world for Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27. The two are not disconnected. Israel’s policy should be scrutinized like any other states, and the loss of any innocent life should be mourned. But some of Israel’s fiercest critics go far beyond the limits of what might be termed rational debate. They have obscenely tried to turn the Holocaust on its head, portraying Israel as committing Nazi-like crimes, the ultimate libel against the Jewish state.
A Catholic cardinal and leading Vatican official refers to Gaza as a concentration camp.
A Greek newspaper entices readers with the banner headline Holocaust, referring to Israel’s alleged actions in Gaza.
A Brazilian newspaper publishes two cartoons, one of Hitler wearing an armband emblazoned with the Star of David and swastika, saluting, Heil Israel!; the other of a Star of David casting a shadow in the form of a swastika over the Gaza Strip.
On his website, white supremacist David Duke reacts to the Gaza crisis by lamenting that Hollywood portrays Jews as Holocaust victims rather than perpetrators.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calls on Venezuela’s Jewish community to denounce “the Holocaust being committed in Gaza”.
Posters equating the Star of David with the Nazi swastika are ubiquitous at anti-Israel rallies around the world.
A demonstrator in Holland confidently asserts that Anne Frank would be turning over in her grave, if she saw what was happening in Gaza.
Shame!
Israel seeks to defend itself in a highly complex environment, where the adversary, Hamas, cravenly uses civilians as shields and mosques as armories. For that right to protect its citizens, which any sovereign nation would exercise under similar circumstances, it is labeled as the successor to the demonic force that wiped out two-thirds of European Jewry, including 1.5 million children.
How many times does it need to be said?
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Israel has repeatedly renounced any territorial ambitions there. Israel gave Gazans the first chance in their history to govern themselves.
Israel has a vested interest in a peaceful, prosperous, and developing Gaza. This point cannot be stressed enough. After all, the two are destined to share a common border.
Israel has only one overarching concern in Gaza: Does it pose a security threat to neighboring Israel? The answer, tragically, is clear. That was the result of a decision taken in Gaza, not Israel. Hamas was chosen to rule, and choices have consequences. After all, Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist.
Why were tunnels built across the Egyptian border? What are the Iranian-made Grad missiles going through those tunnels to Gaza meant for? And why are Hamas fighters going through those tunnels in the other direction for training in Iran and Lebanon?
More than 10,000 rockets, missiles, and mortars have been fired at southern Israel from Gaza in the past eight years. Towns and villages have lived under constant threat. If some of those projectiles were crude and missed their targets, it was not for lack of trying. Their aim is to kill, maim, and intimidate as many civilians as possible. Everything is fair game—homes, hospitals, schools, playgrounds. The trauma this has created cannot be adequately described.
And for what? To liberate Gaza? Well, Gaza is already under Hamas, not Israeli, rule. No, more likely, to eventually liberate Israel from Israeli rule.
But wait.
What about all the clergy, cartoonists, protesters, and politicians so concerned about the human rights of those in Gaza? Have they ever uttered a peep while those 10,000 rockets, missiles, and mortars were raining down on southern Israel? Did they ever take to the streets to support the human rights of Israelis? Did they ever read the Hamas Charter and hear the echoes of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, two European books that helped to condemn Jews to their death?
Did they ever put two and two together and ask what would happen if Hamas married its annihilationist goals with ever more advanced weaponry? And did it occur to them that, yes, nearly six million Israeli Jews would be in the crosshairs?
To ask these questions is to answer them, which probably means one of two things.
Either the accusers are totally clueless about the Holocaust and, therefore, incapable of understanding why their words and actions are so outrageous.
Or they are deliberately manipulating history, distorting the truth, and twisting facts for a larger political purpose.
What could that purpose be?
Well, for starters, extreme right, extreme left, and radical Islamic groups have found something to agree on—the Holocaust complicates their goals.
For the extreme right, by seeking to deny or minimize the Holocaust, the crime of their predecessors, they have tried to burnish their credentials as a responsible element in more mainstream society.
For the extreme left, the Holocaust is seen as a basis for the subsequent creation of the State of Israel, a nation whose right to exist they single-mindedly deny.
And for radical Islamic groups, the Holocaust is regarded as a perennial source of sympathy for Israel, undermining efforts to chip away at its legitimacy.
These three movements can’t agree on much, but they seem to have a convergent interest in hijacking the Holocaust and using it against Israel.
And there are others, especially in Europe, who don’t fit into any of these three categories but may have their own Holocaust-related agenda.
Perhaps it’s an effort to get out from under the moral weight of the genocide. After all, it was the sins of commission by the perpetrators, abetted by the sins of omission on the part of bystanders, that amounted to the Final Solution. How could Europe, especially the Europe that today sees itself as a source of such enlightenment and reason, have been the stage for such a monstrous crime against humanity just a few short decades ago?
And, of course, the Europe in which the Holocaust unfolded was a continent already haunted by the crowded presence of Jewish ghost victims of centuries of expulsions, pogroms, ghettos, pales of settlement, inquisitions, forced conversions, discriminatory laws, professional restrictions, conspiracy theories, blood libels, and the teaching of contempt.
Pinning a swastika on Israel, and, by extension, its supporters, can be unburdening. It allows for a catharsis of the spirit. Given a measure of power, the argument goes, the Jews behave no differently than the Nazis. According to this inverted, not to mention perverted, logic, the only lesson of the Holocaust is to stand up for targeted victims. And who is that targeted victim today? The Palestinians of Gaza, of course.
The Holocaust taught several lessons. This January 27th would be a good time to remind the world of what they are.
First, sometimes people mean what they say. Hitler spelled out his ambitions well in advance. Too few took him seriously. Until late in the day, there were those leaders in Europe who believed that he could be reasoned with, that his words were simply hyperbolic, that negotiations were possible, and that compromises could be reached. Is it possible that Hamas and its patron, Iran, actually mean what they say when they speak of a world without Israel?
Second, there is such a thing as a just war. War should be the last option, but there are times when it must remain an option. Had the Allied nations not declared war on the Third Reich, how would the world have looked? Mind you, that war was neither clean nor surgical, and Allied leaders were hardly preoccupied with debates over proportionality.
As diplomacy offered no solution and restraint met with no reciprocity, what was Israel supposed to do in the face of Hamas’ arms buildup and daily barrage of fire? Simply accept the role of sitting duck so that it might aspire to the moral high ground of victimhood?
And third, defenselessness is no strategy. Jews were defenseless against the Nazi onslaught. They had no army, no recourse to weapons, and few who sought to defend them. Jews learned, at high cost, never to permit such vulnerability again.
So, as January 27th approaches, and we recall the six million, spare us the lip service and the crocodile tears from those who would accuse Israel of Nazi-like crimes.
Remembering dead Jews is important, yes, but protecting living Jews is no less significant.
The Tehran regime is offering “peace in our time” – for a price. Is the West willing to pay it? Professor Ze’ev Maghen, Chair of The Department of Middle Eastern History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, explores this question in a new essay published in Commentary Magazine.
“What is true for Nazi storm troopers and al-Qaeda operatives is true for today’s fundamentalist Shiites. It is not their genuine, vehement hatred that we have to fear; it is their endless, drone-like training. Their militant hostility to Israel is no more a function of immediate, genuine, blood-boiling rage than it is the result of some heinous act or other performed by the Jewish state, however frequently such purported crimes are exploited as triggers of ‘popular’ protest. The hostility is, unfortunately, something far more durable and deeply implanted.
That Israel is the devil, the root of all evil, a criminal cancer that must be excised from the Muslim body politic – these propositions are not ephemeral feelings for most Iranian Muslims, but rather eternal truths that gradually, through endless, tantra-like repetition, have cloyed in the conscious mind while simultaneously installing themselves beneath the level of immediate emotion and awareness, in the place where basic instincts, automatic assumptions, and ontological verities reside. There they have taken root, to remain dormant until circumstances require their activation. When the time is right – and the rulers of Iran have made no secret of their conviction that the time is drawing ever nearer – decades of propaganda will serve the same function for them that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe performed for the Nazis.”
In an op-ed in The Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson urges the creation of “a capable, hard-hitting European military force, supported by the United States” to stabilize the dramatic situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“The setting of this city is all contrast and drama – nestled along a vast, placid lake but dominated by a volcano that steams by day and glows faint and red on a clear evening. A city living in the shadow of sudden violence.
Driving north from Goma, one passes through wide lava fields – black, broken and sharp to the feet. About seven miles along the rutted road, the uniforms of the soldiers change, from the solid green of the FARDC (the Congolese military) to the camouflage of the CNDP (the rebel forces led by Laurent Nkunda). For civilians, the colors of the uniforms often matter little – all the groups are capable of pillage and rape.
Less than a mile from the front, a left turn brings you into the Kibati I camp – more than 6,000 men, women and children displaced by nearby fighting. The camps channel the problems of Congo like a storm drain after a flash food – skin diseases, worms, diarrhea and respiratory ailments. A teenage girl wears a heavy coat against her malarial chills. An 8-year-old boy named Glory smiles for the camera, even though his body is hot with fever.
When the various armies move, whole towns flee, causing spikes in sexual violence and acute malnutrition. And this individual suffering gathers into shocking statistics. Perhaps 4 million deaths related to war over the past decade.”
To remember Kristallnacht properly, we must first renounce its German-given name.
A boy cleans the street after Kristallnacht.
Seventy years ago, on the nights of November 9 and 10, 1938, rampaging mobs throughout Germany, Austria and Sudetenland freely attacked Jews in the street, in their homes and at their places of work and worship in a carefully orchestrated outbreak of government sponsored violence. At least 96 Jews were killed and hundreds more injured, hundreds of synagogues were burned, almost 7,500 Jewish businesses were destroyed, cemeteries and schools were vandalized, and 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps – many of them never to return alive to their loved ones.
Many historians consider that as the real beginning of the Holocaust, the first step in the planned extermination of the Jewish people leading to the eventual deaths of six million victims of the Nazi program of genocide.
For that reason it is certainly proper to commemorate this harbinger of horror, the infamous dates that mark the onset of the spiral of unimaginable hatred unloosed among a supposedly civilized people.
What is unfathomable to me, though, is the name by which this commemoration continues to be known.
This November Jewish communities throughout the world will again gather to recall Kristallnacht – and will unwittingly allow themselves, in some measure, to verbally embrace the very heresy that abetted the Holocaust.
Kristallnacht is German for “the night of crystal.” And 70 years after the horrible events of 1938 should have given us by now sufficient perspective to expose the lie of a horrible WMD – Word of Mass Deception – that epitomizes the key to the most powerful methodology for murder perfected by the Nazis.
How, after all, were the Nazis able to commit their crimes under the veneer of civilized respectability? Upon analysis, the answer is obvious. They glorified the principle of murder by euphemism.
Special Treatment
In the language of the Nazi perpetrators: Sonderbehandlung (“special treatment”) was the way to describe gassing victims. Euthanasie was the “polite” way to speak of the mass murder of retarded or physically handicapped patients. Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Makes you Free) were the words that greeted new arrivals at the entrance to the death camp of Auschwitz. When the Nazis launched their plan to annihilate the remaining Jews in Poland in the fall of 1943, they called it “Erntefest,” or Harvest Festival.
And perhaps most cynical of all was the use of the term, “Endloesung der Judenfrage” – in English “The Final Solution” – to express the concept for which civilized language as yet had no term. (The word ‘genocide’ was introduced in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, who had escaped from German-occupied Poland to the US.)
Euphemisms, as Quentin Crisp so brilliantly put it, are “unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne.” On the simplest level the name Kristallnacht suggests that the only terrible thing that happened was breakage of a tremendous amount of glass that would have to be replaced – a financial loss caused by wasteful vandalism that the government subsequently dealt with by taxing the Jewish community to pay for the damages inflicted upon them.
Kristallnacht was the German euphemism for a time of sanctioned killing. The word takes into account only the loss of kristall, and is one reason why its continued usage is so appalling.
But there was more to it than that.
Dr. Walter H. Pehle, a historian specializing in modern Germany, has already pointed out that Kristallnacht’s original intent was cynically propagandizing the violence into something metaphorically holding “sparkle and gleam” for Germany. Almost by way of confirmation, in googling the English for “crystal night” I was startled to find among the many references that related to the night of Nazi terror, the inclusion of the following ad: “For an extra-inviting glow, consider using Sylvania’s new C7 Crystal night light bulbs in your electric candles. The multi-faceted crystal lights provide a warm, sparkly glow.”
It is that very connection that played no small role in Goebbel’s choice of descriptive for a moment that the German Minister of Propaganda wanted to immortalize as a sparkling and glowing portend of a future rid of its “Jewish parasites.”
Why then would we choose to identify the night of initial mass murders with a word that not only ignores everything other than broken glass, but in fact glorifies its results as gifts of crystal clear light to the distorted truths of Nazi ideology?
To remember Kristallnacht properly we must first renounce its German-given name.
We must proclaim that we commemorate not broken windows but shattered lives.
We must pledge never again to allow evil to enter our lives disguised as the good and the noble.
We must declare that no euphemisms will ever again be permitted to cloak the horrors they intend to conceal.
Kristallnacht must be observed, but let it be known by a name that realistically captures its iniquitous essence. Allow me to suggest that we call it instead Kainsnacht, the “Night of Cain,” the first murderer at the very beginning of human history, who was cursed by God and condemned to carry a mark of his crime on his forehead for the rest of his days as a warning to mankind of the severity of his sin. That would link its commemorative date not with mob acts of breakage and vandalism, but rather with the far more heinous crime of unforgivable murder first committed by Cain.
Author Biography: Rabbi Benjamin Blech is the author of 12 highly acclaimed books, including Understanding Judaism: The basics of Deed and Creed. He is a professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University and the Rabbi Emeritus of Young Israel of Oceanside (California) which he served for 37 years and from which he retired to pursue his interests in writing and lecturing around the globe. He is also the author of If God is Good, Why is the World So Bad?
Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.
U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust
A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”
Lyndon Baines Johnson in navy uniform (1942)
But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.
Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas .
A key resource for uncovering LBJ’s pro-Jewish activity is the unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis Gomolak, “Prologue: LBJ’s Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948.” Johnson’s activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews with his wife, family members and political associates.
LEO FRANK’S LYNCHING
Research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. According to Gomolak, Aunt Jessie had nurtured LBJ’s commitment to befriending Jews for 50 years. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather “Big Sam” and father “Little Sam” seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. The Johnsons later told friends that Lyndon’s family hid in their cellar while his father and uncles stood guard with shotguns on their porch in case of KKK attacks. Johnson’s speechwriter later stated, “Johnson often cited Leo Frank’s lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism.”
Already in 1934 – four years before Chamberlain’s Munich sellout to Hitler – Johnson was keenly alert to the dangers of Nazism and presented a book of essays, Nazism: An Assault on Civilization, to the 21-year-old woman he was courting, Claudia Taylor – later known as “Lady Bird” Johnson. It was an incredible engagement present.
Five days after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the “Dixiecrats” and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland. In 1938, Johnson was told of a young Austrian Jewish musician who was about to be deported from the United States. With an element of subterfuge, LBJ sent him to the US Consulate in Havana to obtain a residency permit. Erich Leinsdorf, the world famous musician and conductor, credited LBJ for saving his live.
GET AS MANY JEWS OUT
That same year, LBJ warned a Jewish friend, Jim Novy, that European Jews faced annihilation. “Get as many Jewish people as possible out [of Germany and Poland],” were Johnson’s instructions. Somehow, Johnson provided him with a pile of signed immigration papers that were used to get 42 Jews out of Warsaw.
But that wasn’t enough. According to historian James M. Smallwood, Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to smuggle “hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry port. Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries…. Johnson smuggled boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas. He hid them in the Texas National Youth Administration… Johnson saved at least four or five hundred Jews, possibly more.”
During World War II Johnson joined Novy at a small Austin gathering to sell $65,000 in war bonds. According to Gomolak, Novy and Johnson then raised a very “substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine.” One source cited by the historian reports that “Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled ‘Texas Grapefruit’ – but containing arms – to Jewish underground ‘freedom fighters’ in Palestine.”
On June 4, 1945, Johnson visited Dachau. According to Smallwood, Lady Bird later recalled that when her husband returned home, “he was still shaken, stunned, terrorized and bursting with an overpowering revulsion and incredulous horror at what he had seen.”
DEFENDER OF ISRAEL
A decade later while serving in the Senate, Johnson blocked the Eisenhower administration’s attempts to apply sanctions against Israel following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. “The indefatigable Johnson had never ceased pressure on the administration,” wrote I.L. “Si” Kenen, the head of AIPAC at the time.
As Senate majority leader, Johnson consistently blocked the anti-Israel initiatives of his fellow Democrat, William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among Johnson’s closest advisers during this period were several strong pro-Israel advocates, including Benjamin Cohen (who 30 years earlier was the liaison between Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis and Chaim Weizmann) and Abe Fortas, the legendary Washington “insider.”
Johnson’s concern for the Jewish people continued through his presidency. Soon after taking office in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson told an Israeli diplomat, “You have lost a very great friend, but you have found a better one.”
Just one month after succeeding Kennedy, LBJ attended the December 1963 dedication of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Austin. Novy opened the ceremony by saying to Johnson, “We can’t thank him enough for all those Jews he got out of Germany during the days of Hitler.”
Lady Bird would later describe the day, according to Gomolak: “Person after person plucked at my sleeve and said, ‘I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for him. He helped me get out.'” Lady Bird elaborated, “Jews had been woven into the warp and woof of all [Lyndon’s] years.”
1967 WAR
The prelude to the 1967 war was a terrifying period for Israel, with the US State Department led by the historically unfriendly Dean Rusk urging an evenhanded policy despite Arab threats and acts of aggression. Johnson held no such illusions. After the war he placed the blame firmly on Egypt: “If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision [by Egypt] that the Strait of Tiran would be closed [to Israeli ships and Israeli-bound cargo].”
Kennedy was the first president to approve the sale of defensive US weapons to Israel, specifically Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. But Johnson approved tanks and fighter jets, all vital after the 1967 war when France imposed a freeze on sales to Israel.
Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. “I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel,” Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. “Because it is right,” responded the straight-shooting Texan.
The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson’s scrutiny. The call for “secure and recognized boundaries” was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, “We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved.”
Goldberg later noted, “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate.” This historic diplomacy was conducted under Johnson’s stewardship, as Goldberg related in oral history to the Johnson Library. “I must say for Johnson,” Goldberg stated. “He gave me great personal support.”
Robert David Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College, recently wrote in The New York Sun, “Johnson’s policies stemmed more from personal concerns – his friendship with leading Zionists, his belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home state of Texas. His personal concerns led him to intervene when he felt that the State or Defense departments had insufficiently appreciated Israel’s diplomatic or military needs.”
President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction. In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance and the strategic bonds between the two countries can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.
The writer served as deputy chief of mission of the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put anti-Semitism on full display, accusing “a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists” for dominating financial and political centers in Europe and the U.S. in “a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.” He accused Jews of playing an “underhanded” role in the crisis in Georgia, and reiterated his call for the demise of the “Zionist regime.” In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) protested the address by the UN General Assembly President, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, at a dinner honoring the Iranian leader. The General Assembly president “has put the credibility of the United Nations into question,” wrote AJC.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
The American Jewish Committee was appalled to learn that the President of the General Assembly, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, has put the credibility of the United Nations into question. He has agreed to speak at a dinner in honor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, a person whose blatant Holocaust denial has been rejected by you, the Security Council, and the General Assembly. As recently as last week, Mr. Ahmadinejad, having previously termed the Holocaust a “fairy tale,” denied the Holocaust again, calling it “fake.”
General Assembly Resolution 60/7 “rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or in part.” To prevent further acts of genocide, General Assembly Res. 61/255 specifically calls on states “unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event.” Your statement that Holocaust denial is “not acceptable” graces the home page of the UN’s Holocaust Remembrance site, together with another quotation from you: “Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any State…” The Security Council has joined in rejecting Mr. Ahmadinejad’s threats to the State of Israel.
Given Mr. Ahmadinejad’s repeated statements about the “annihilation” and eradication of a UN member state, Israel, the claim that this event is a dialogue for peace cannot be taken seriously. Furthermore, the claim that this dinner promotes dialogue of any kind is undercut by Mr. Ahmadinejad himself, who has clearly stated: “We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime.” It will serve as a platform through which the UN will help legitimize Holocaust denial, not to mention the destruction of a member state.
Ironically entitled “religious contributions to peace,” the invitation to the dinner at which Miguel D’Escoto is scheduled to speak identifies him in no other capacity but his role as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Mr. Secretary General, under your able leadership, the UN has been clear in its rejection of Holocaust denial. You have reminded states that the Holocaust is “a unique and undeniable tragedy.” Given the clarity and overwhelming support by you and the nations of the world for these resolutions, it is obvious that the presence of the President of the General Assembly at an event in honor of Mr. Ahmadinejad would make a mockery of you, the United Nations, and the nations and leaders who have made a point of rejecting Holocaust denial whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is made.
The General Assembly resolution reminded states that “remembrance is critical to prevent further acts of genocide.” You have indicated that any attempt to cast doubt on the reality of this unique and undeniable horror must be firmly resisted by all people of goodwill and of whatever faith.
Mr. Secretary-General, we ask that you put the full weight of your moral authority as head of the United Nations, and as someone who is profoundly concerned with its standing in the world, to convey to Mr. D’Escoto the unacceptability of his participation in his capacity as President of the UN General Assembly.
This dinner is an inauspicious beginning for the 62nd General Assembly, and it does not augur well for the prospect of a balanced and just session.
Respectfully,
Richard J. Sideman & David A. Harris
The American Jewish Committee also called on UN member states to condemn Ahmadinejad’s speech, rife with anti-Semitic stereotypes, to the GA.
“Today, President Ahmadinejad has left no doubt that he hates Jews,” said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. “His violent bigotry is made all the more threatening by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions.”
Ahmadinejad’s address was rife with obvious anti-Semitic stereotypes, including his descriptions of a covert Jewish “network” that controls the media, dominates financial markets, and deviously starts wars. His comment that “the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse” echoed his previous calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
“As he seeks to build the deadliest weapons on earth, a proud anti-Semite has hijacked the United Nations to broadcast hate,” said Harris. “We call upon the international community to start applying pressure commensurate with the threat posed by President Ahmadinejad, and to stop doing business as usual with the country he represents.”
In der heutigen Ausgabe der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung antwortet Spiegel-Kolumnist Henryk M. Broder dem Feuilleton-Chef Patrick Bahners, der ihm vorgehalten hatte, in Fragen zu Israel den Antisemitismus-Vorwurf zu erheben.
“Ein Sieg Broders vor Gericht wäre daher nicht einfach als Sieg der Meinungsfreiheit einzustufen. Seine preisgekrönte publizistische Strategie der verbalen Aggression nutzt den Spielraum der Meinungsfreiheit, um ihn einzuschränken: Kritiker Israels sollen eingeschüchtert werden”, schrieb Patrick Bahners.
Henryk M. Broder fügt hinzu: “Soll ein Gericht darüber entscheiden, wo Israel-Kritik aufhört und wo Antisemitismus anfängt? Oder hat Bahners einen zuverlässigen Lackmustest für diese Frage entwickelt? … Diese ‘Antisemitismus-Keule‘ gibt es tatsächlich, nur dient sie nicht dazu, Israel-Kritiker einzuschüchtern, die ganz munter und ungeniert agieren, sie dient primär dazu, die Debatte über einen Antisemitismus zu verhindern, der smarter und subtiler ist als derjenige, den die Nazis praktiziert haben. Wie jedes Ressentiment geht auch der Antisemitismus mit der Zeit. Sich von dem Antisemitismus der Nazis zu distanzieren, ist heute eine der Voraussetzungen, um einen sauberen Antisemitismus praktizieren zu können.”
The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court says the court will seek an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. UN officials say they are concerned the proceedings could hamper peace efforts in Darfur.
“The action by the prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, will mark the first time that the tribunal in The Hague charges a sitting head of state with such crimes, and represents a major step by the court to implicate the highest levels of the Sudanese government for the atrocities in Darfur.
Some U.N. officials raised concerns Thursday that the decision would complicate the peace process in Darfur, possibly triggering a military response by Sudanese forces or proxies against the nearly 10,000 U.N. and African Union peacekeepers located there. At least seven peacekeepers were killed and 22 were injured Tuesday during an ambush by a well-organized and unidentified armed group.”
by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, professor of English and Jewish Studies at Indiana University (USA)
I want to go on living even after my death. (Anne Frank)
In January, a stenciled image of a smiling Anne Frank wearing a red and white kaffiyeh appeared on the walls of buildings in Amsterdam. Soon after, an enterprising Dutch business firm called Boomerang transferred this image to designer T-shirts and postcards. The cards were distributed free throughout the Netherlands, no doubt to boost sales for Boomerang’s politically chic new line of shirts. But it was a risky marketing move to promote a product featuring the face of Amsterdam’s most famous martyr made over to look like Yasser Arafat’s daughter.
The Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands expressed outrage. So did Dutch Jewish organizations. But that response was not universal. Some were drawn to the newfangled Palestinian Anne Frank and endorsed the artist’s political point, which one blogger interpreted to be that “the Zionists, in the name of Jewry, [were] doing to the Palestinians what was done to Jews in Europe.” This simplistic formula has become a staple in the rhetoric of contemporary anti-Zionism. The charge it makes is baseless, but it is rhetorically catchy and now routinely employed to tar Israel with the Nazi brush.
Borowskis Erzählungen gehören zu den frühesten Zeugnissen der Vernichtung des europäischen Judentums im Dritten Reich, sie entstanden Ende der 40er Jahre und erschienen 1963 erstmals auf Deutsch unter dem Titel Die steinerne Welt, und 2007 neu übersetzt unter dem Titel Bei uns in Auschwitz. Trotzdem blieb der Pole, der sich 1951, mit 28, das Leben nahm, der unbekannteste Klassiker der Holocaust-Literatur.
Ein alter Mann im Frack mit einer Armbinde wird herbeigeschleift. Sein Kopf schlägt auf den Kies auf, auf den Steinen, er stöhnt und wiederholt monoton: ‘Ich will mit dem Herrn Kommandanten sprechen.’ […] Er wird auf den Wagen geworfen, von jemandem zu Boden getreten, fast erstickt, aber er röchelt noch immer: ‘Ich will mit dem …’ – ‘Mann, sei endlich still’, ruft der junge SS-Mann ihm lachend zu. ‘In einer halben Stunde wirst du mit dem obersten Kommandanten sprechen. Vergiss nur ja nicht, ‘Heil Hitler!’ zu ihm zu sagen.’ Zwei andere tragen ein Mädchen herbei, das nur noch ein Bein hat; sie tragen es an den Armen und dem einen Bein. Tränen laufen ihm über das Gesicht, kläglich flüstert sie: ‘Meine Herren, es tut weh…’ Man wirft sie zu den Leichen. Sie wird mit ihnen verbrannt, bei lebendigem Leibe. (Bei uns in Auschwitz)
“Ich wollte aufschreiben, was ich erlebt habe, aber wer auf der Welt wird einem Schreiber glauben, der eine unbekannte Sprache spricht? Das ist, als wollte ich Bäume und Steine überzeugen”, sagt Tadeusz Borowski nach seiner Befreiung und Rückkehr nach Warschau.
Vorwort der polnischen Ausgabe von Jerzy Andrzejewski:
“Er war der geborene Intellektuelle, aber trotzdem nicht frei von emotionellen Komplikationen. Nur wenige seiner Zeitgenossen verstanden es mit der gleichen Scharfsichtigkeit wie er, das dunkle Chaos menschlicher Schicksale zu erahnen: wahrscheinlich kam ihm niemand gleich in der künstlerischen Wiedergabe der Lagererlebnisse. Schmächtig, kaum mittelgroß, mit dunklem, ewig zerzaustem Haar, mit lebhaften Augen, war er intelligent, aggressiv, beinahe impertinent in der Diskussion, kapriziös im Umgang mit seinen Kollegen, abwechselnd misstrauisch und herzlich, eher geneigt, seine Gefühle zu verbergen, eine schwer zu beschreibende Fremdheit ausstrahlend und dabei doch oft ausgelassen und lustiger Kumpan. Sein kostbarster Besitz war seine Feder, mit ihr wollte er dienen. Über die Grenze des Lebens und des Todes schritt er mit der Gewaltsamkeit, mit der er alles tat!
Diese Erzählungen Borowskis gehören zu den beklemmenden Zeugnissen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Einer, der das Inferno der Konzentrationslager erlebt hat, berichtet über Bedrohung und Versuchung, Angst und Hoffnung. Die Einmaligkeit des Werks besteht nicht nur darin, dass er die Gräuel der Vernichtungslager mit literarischen Mitteln zu beschreiben versucht – ganz und gar eigenständig ist auch die Konzeption der Tragik, die einen Unterton von scheinbaren Zynismus, scheinbarer moralischer Indifferenz bedingt. Die Arroganz der alteingesessenen Häftlinge gegenüber den Neuankömmlingen im Lager wird geschildert: Im Kampf um die nackte Existenz macht sich auch das Opfer mitschuldig, wird der Mensch zum Wolf unter Wölfen.”
Karol Sauerland, Professor für deutsche Literatur und Ästhetik an der Universität von Warschau, schildert in einem Essay die einzigartige Mischung aus Sarkasmus und ohnmächtigem Leiden, die Borowskis Werk beinhaltet.
“So manche Sätze in seinen Auschwitz-Erzählungen erinnern wortwörtlich an Formulierungen Célines. Und auch viele Motive ähneln sich. Wahrscheinlich wollte es Borowski in seiner Einschätzung, wozu Menschen fähig sind, sowie im sprachlichen Ausdruck dem französischen Autor gleichtun. Nur die Realien sind andere: nicht der Krieg, das Galeerendasein oder das Armenhospital, sondern Auschwitz. Wie Céline spitzt Borowski alles zu, und sein Erzähler gibt sich leicht, als würde er kaum leiden.”
Heute Abend beginnt Yom Hashoa, Israels nationaler Gedenktag für die Opfer des Holocaust und die Helden des Widerstandes. Er wird jedes Jahr nach dem hebräischen Kalender am 27. Nissan begangen.
Ursprünglich war als Datum der 15. Nissan vorgeschlagen worden, der Tag des Aufstands im Warschauer Ghetto (19. April 1943). Dieser Vorschlag wurde aber schließlich verworfen, da zum selben Zeitpunkt das Pessach-Fest stattfindet. Das jetzige Datum liegt genau eine Woche vor dem Gedenktag an die für den Staat Israel gefallenen Soldaten und acht Tage vor dem israelischen Unabhängigkeitstag. 1959 wurde Yom Hashoa vom ersten Ministerpräsidenten des Staates Israel, David Ben-Gurion, eingeführt.
Zur Eröffnungszeremonie am Abend werden in der Jerusalemer Holocaust-Gedenkstätte Yad Vashem sechs Fackeln entzündet, die symbolisch für die sechs Millionen jüdischer Opfer stehen. Am nächsten Morgen heulen im gesamten Land um 10 Uhr für zwei Minuten die Sirenen. Der öffentliche Nahverkehr und normalerweise auch alle anderen Fahrzeuge halten an, die Passanten bleiben schweigend stehen.
Während des Gedenktages Yom Hashoa bleiben alle Vergnügungsstätten geschlossen, im Funk und Fernsehen laufen keine Unterhaltungssendungen, sondern Trauermusik und Dokumentationen zum Holocaust. Alle Flaggen wehen auf Halbmast.
Sudan’s allies from the African, Islamic groups and Non-Aligned blocs lined up to praise Khartoum, a position that was formalized in a consensus resolution welcoming the collaboration of the government of Sudan.
Gibreil Hamid, a survivor from Darfur, took the floor on behalf of UN Watch to confront the impunity granted to Sudan.
See full text below.
***
UN Human Rights Council, 7th Session
Interactive Dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur on Sudan
UN Watch Statement Delivered by Gibreil Hamid, March 17, 2008
Thank you, Mr. President.
I speak on behalf of UN Watch. We thank the Special Rapporteur for her excellent work for the victims of Darfur.
Mr. President, I am from Darfur, and I know the truth about what is happening there. The truth can be found in today’s report.
The report shows how the Government of Sudan is violating human rights and international humanitarian law, with physical assaults, abductions and rape. In October, Government forces attacked Muhajiriya. People praying in a mosque were rounded up, and forty-eight civilians were killed. In November, Government planes dropped bombs on Habila. The attackers entered the villages, shooting, stealing animals and setting fire to houses.
On 2 December, in West Darfur, armed men attacked a group of ten women and girls. A sixteen-year-old girl from the group was gang raped, and at least three other women were whipped and beaten with axes. Police and soldiers refused to help.
Today’s report says that violence against women in Darfur is continuing. There is no improvement. There is no justice. The attackers enjoy immunity.
Mr. President, in the name of basic human rights, UN Watch urges Sudan to end these attacks against innocent civilians. UN Watch asks this Council to please stop praising Sudan for its “cooperation.” Mr. President, attacking little girls is not “cooperation.”
We wish to ask the rapporteur: What further action is she planning to protect the victims of Darfur?
The American award is regarded as the highest national honor in print journalism, literary achievements and musical composition.
The Czech-born Friedländer survived the Holocaust and moved to Israel, eventually winning the nation’s top civilian honor, the Israel Prize, for his scholarship. He currently serves as a UCLA professor. Jewish composer David Lang, co-founder and co-artistic director of the music collective Bang on a Can, was awarded a Pulitzer in music for his composition The Little Match Girl Passion. The famed Jewish singer and songwriter Bob Dylan also received a special Pulitzer award.
Geneva, March 19, 2008 – In testimony this week before the United Nations Human Rights Council, StandWithUs International Director and CEO Roz Rothstein provoked the ire of Egypt and Iran when she addressed issues of racism in Darfur and Holocaust denial by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad.
Delivering a statement on behalf of UN Watch, the Geneva-based human rights organization, Rothstein’s speech was interrupted by an objection from the Egyptian representative, a leader in the Arab and African blocs, after she dared to mention the killings in Darfur. When she resumed speaking, her mention of anti-Semitism by Iran’s leader was quickly interrupted by the Iranian envoy, who formally objected to any mention of Iran on a discussion of racism.
As a result of the repeated objections and the chairman’s caution, Rothstein was denied the right to read her section on the anti-Semitic incitement of Hamas and Hezbollah and the murder of 8 students from Jerusalem while Hamas distributed candy in Gaza. However, the full written statement will form part of the official U.N. record. Interruptions of NGO statements are rare, and generally indicate acute sensitivity on the part of the objecting party.
“What we saw today from Iran is that the truth hurts,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. “Our statement dared to speak truth to power. It is a sad day for free speech and the founding principles of the United Nations when NGOs are denied the right to name racists in a debate supposedly dedicated to the subject of racism.”
UN Watch Oral Statement
Agenda Item 9: Review of Mandate of UN Special Rapporteur on Racism Doudou Diène
UN Human Rights Council, 7th Session, March 19, 2008
Statement delivered by Roz Rothstein
Thank you, Mr. President.
We strongly support renewing the mandate against racism. We wish to address the draft resolution that is before us.
For me, the issue of racism is not academic. My parents survived the Nazi Holocaust. Eighty of my relatives were murdered.
Mr. President, I know what racism, hatred and anti- Semitism can lead to. What began with racist words, ended with genocide.
The United Nations and its Commission on Human Rights were created to prevent such evil from ever happening again. Tragically, however, it has happened-in Cambodia, Rwanda, and today in Darfur.
Equally, the evil of anti-Semitism continues to rear its ugly head, and it is rightly addressed in the proposed resolution. There are many examples. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad actively promotes Holocaust denial, and calls for eliminating the Jewish state. We salute the expert on racism for condemning this.
Hamas and Hezbollah, however, systematically promote the same kind of genocidal anti-Semitism in their sermons, websites and media broadcasts. A terrorist translated this incitement into deed in Jerusalem two weeks ago, murdering eight young Jewish students in a religious school. And in Gaza, the Hamas government-who’s Charter openly advocates killing Jews and destroying the Jewish state-passed out candy to celebrate.
Organizations such as StandWithUs are doing vital work to educate against hatred. But the UN and all nations gathered here, must do more to fight words that kill.
At Durban in 2001, a conference meant to combat racism saw some of the worst displays of anti- Semitism since the Holocaust. Leaflets were distributed with Hitler’s picture, calling for the destruction of Israel.
As this Council prepares the 2009 follow-up conference, its noble goals must not be hijacked by the forces of intolerance. Nations must rise to defeat words that kill. For all these reasons, we support a strong mandate to combat racism. Thank you, Mr. President.
Please note that all registrants will be required to provide government-issued identification and a valid business card in order to attend this conference.
In the ongoing discussion of the war against the terror masters, anti-Semitism remains a central theme. As this prejudice continues to gain strength all over the world, its relationship to the preeminent threat against the West deserves special consideration.
German scholar Matthias Küntzel is the author of the widely discussed book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press, 2007). Küntzel’s central thesis is that a great deal of contemporary Islamist anti-Semitism comes directly from the Third Reich, that it was institutionalized in the Middle East during the Second World War, and that is has grown ever since, thanks to organizations and individuals who – in many cases – received direct ideological, political, and financial support from the Nazis and who are still very active.
Please join us as Matthias Küntzel and AEI’s Michael A. Ledeen and Michael Novak discuss this argument and its implications for the struggle against violent fundamentalists and anti-Semitism in the world today.
1:45 p.m. Registration
2:00 Panelists: Matthias Küntzel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem & Michael Novak, AEI
Moderator: Michael A. Ledeen, AEI
3:30 Adjournment
Media Inquiries Veronique Rodman
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-862-4870
E-mail: VRodman@aei.org
Mörgeli is at the centre of a political storm in Switzerland after alleging that the country’s federal president Pascal Couchepin, had deliberately made a pun comparing him to the infamous Nazi surgeon Josef Mengele during a parliamentary debate. Couchepin insists that his reference to “Doctor Morgele” as the infamous Auschwitz doctor had been a slip of the tongue.
In a statement, the Buchenwald Memorial Foundation criticized what it called the use of the camp for an internal Swiss political argument, and demanded an apology from both Mörgeli and SF1. “Never before have a politician or broadcaster disregarded our rules in such a way,” foundation head Prof. Dr. Volkhard Knigge said. Filming is only allowed in Buchenwald for documentaries or other programmes which depict the Nazi crimes committed there.
At least 56,000 people were killed at the camp from 1937 until it was liberated by the Third US Army in April 1945. SF1 said it was pure coincidence that Mörgeli happened to be at Buchenwald when they contacted him for an interview over the Couchepin affair. The broadcaster said the interview was filmed just outside the actual camp, but conceded that a ‘neutral venue’ would have been more appropriate.
Mörgeli denied using his visit to Buchenwald to score political points. He continued his attack on Couchepin, telling Swiss newspaper ‘Le Matin’ that the president should resign over his remarks. “If people could hear what he said, they would not want Pascal Couchepin to be president of Switzerland,” he said.
The president of the Swiss Jewish Community Federation, Alfred Donath, defended Couchepin and said that it was Mörgeli who should apologize for exploiting what he called the Swiss president’s “gaffe”.
Dies teilte Erziehungsministerin Yuli Tamir gestern mit. Der Politologe wird mit dieser Auszeichnung als „einer der landes- und weltweit herausragenden Forscher auf dem Feld des politischen Denkens” geehrt. Neben seinen wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeiten veröffentlicht der bekannte Faschismusforscher regelmäßig Kommentare in der Haaretz.
Sternhell, dem der Preis am Unabhängigkeitstag verliehen werden wird, zeigte sich sehr erfreut und sagte, dies sei eine Auszeichnung für „jahrzehntelanges wissenschaftliches Arbeiten”. Die Mitglieder des Auswahlkomitees, die Professoren Shlomo Avineri, Ella Balfer und Avraham Brichta, teilten mit: „Seine innovativen und in viele Sprachen übersetzten Forschungen in der Politikwissenschaft haben zu einem signifikanten Wandel innerhalb der scientific community in Hinsicht auf ideologische Bewegungen im Allgemeinen und radikale Bewegungen im Besonderen geführt. Prof. Sternhell ist ein Intellektueller, der auch am öffentlichen Diskurs in Israel und der Welt teilnimmt, und seine Ansichten beruhen, auch wenn ihr Ton oft kritisch ist, auf einer tiefen Verbundenheit zu Staat und Gesellschaft in Israel her.”
Sternhell wurde 1935 in Galizien geboren und überlebte den Holocaust „mit ‚arischen Papieren’, durch die Hilfe zweier Familien von Gerechten unter den Völkern, viel Glück und nicht wenig Geld”, wie er selbst schreibt. Nach Kriegsende lebte er bei einer Tante in Frankreich, von wo aus er 1951 mit der Jugend-Aliya nach Israel einwanderte. „Der Unabhängigkeitskrieg beflügelte meine Phantasie, die Entscheidung zur Einwanderung nach Israel war eine persönliche, die von einer zionistischen Familiengeschichte und meinem eigenen Willen, zum Aufbau des Judenstaates beizutragen, herrührt.”
Posted by David Berger 
January 5, 2009 – France – A burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of a synagogue in Toulouse while the rabbi was giving a class inside. Another car was prepared for a second attack, but was abandoned after an alarm scared off the attackers.
hiram7.wordpress.com 