Archive | March 2016

„Burzliwe życie Lejzorka Rojtszwańca” na „deskach” ŻIH

„Burzliwe życie Lejzorka Rojtszwańca” na „deskach” ŻIH

Żydowski Instytut Historyczny


2 i 3 kwietnia 2016 r. sala wystawowa ŻIH zmieni się w salę teatralną, w której Piotr Bikont wystawi swoją adaptację powieści Ilii Erenburga

Wide lejzorek 1

Paweł Pabisiak i Joanna Fidler w spektaklu „Burzliwe życie Lejzorka Rojtszwańca” w reżyserii Piotra Bikonta / Piotr Kozarzewski/Stowarzyszenie Teatralne Badów

2 i 3 kwietnia 2016 roku największa sala wystawowa Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego zmieni się w salę teatralną, w której Piotr Bikont wystawi spektakl zatytułowany „Burzliwe życie Lejzorka Rojtszwańca”, będący adaptacją słynnej powieści satyrycznej autorstwa Ilii Erenburga. Będzie to jedyna okazja, do obejrzenia spektaklu przygotowanego przez Stowarzyszenie Teatralne Badów w Warszawie.

Lejzorka Rojtszwańca, krawca „mężczyźnianego” z Homla, prześladuje niewyobrażalny pech. Życie upływa mu we względnym spokoju w białoruskim miasteczku, gdzie prowadzi niewielki zakład krawiecki, do czasu, kiedy będąc nieszczęśliwie zakochanym ciężko wzdycha. Na jego nieszczęście okazuje się, iż owa refleksja nad trudną miłością przydarza mu się podczas publicznego odczytu dekretu władzy radzieckiej. Z pozoru niewinne westchnienie zostaje uznane za czyn zbrodniczy, wymierzony w powagę urzędu państwowego. A z władzą nie ma żartów. Biegnące do tej pory leniwym rytmem życie Lejzorka staje więc na głowie, a on sam zmuszony jest do opuszczenia swojej rodzinnej miejscowości. Od tej pory staje się uosobieniem Żyda Wiecznego Tułacza, przemierzającego świat w poszukiwaniu szczęścia i własnego miejsca na Ziemi. Podczas swojej wędrówki Lejzorek przekonuje się, że świat nie jest mu przychylny, wręcz przeciwnie – jest brutalny, a wszędzie czekają na niego sidła zastawiane na niego przez ludzi mu niechętnych.

Koleje losu pchają naszego bohatera w głąb Związku Radzieckiego, do rządzonych przez faszystów Niemiec, przez Polskę, Prusy, Francję, a nawet Chiny do Ziemi Obiecanej – Erec Izrael. Jednak nawet tam krawiec „mężczyźniany” z Homla nie zaznaje szczęścia i spełnienia. Jego wędrówka ma bowiem wymiar symboliczny, a dotarcie do punktu docelowego wcale nie oznacza jej kresu. Podobnie symboliczny charakter mają spotkania Lejzorka Rojtszwańca z obywatelami odwiedzanych przez niego krajów. To nie tylko spotkania z poszczególnymi ludźmi, to również pewnego rodzaju metafora dialogu międzykulturowego. Myliłby się jednak ten, kto sądziłby, iż piętrzące się przed Lejzorkiem trudności, niepowodzenia i przykrości są w stanie złamać bohatera. Okazuje się, że jego dobroduszne poczucie humoru i filozofia życiowa pozwalają mu mierzyć się z najtrudniejszymi sytuacjami, raz po raz bawiąc i wzruszając widza. Jest bowiem tak, że w Lejzorku Rojtszwańcu i jego chęci zrozumienia mechanizmów rządzących światem każdy z nas bez trudu dostrzeże swoją potrzebę uporządkowania rzeczywistości i odnalezienia w niej szczęścia. Choćby tylko na chwilę.

W świat zmagań Lejzorka Rojtszwańca z prześladującym go pechem i niepowodzeniami reżyser Piotr Bikont przenosi nas dzięki grze jedynie dwóch aktorów: Joanny Fidler (w roli tytułowej) i Pawła Pabisiaka, wcielającego się we wszystkie postaci spotykane przez krawca z Homla (m.in. głupawego rosyjskiego urzędnika, pijanego rotmistrza, żonę właściciela składu aptecznego, naiwnego aktora dziecięcego czy w paryskiego „smakosza i lowelasa”).

Medium lejzorek 2

Trwająca dwie godziny adaptacja „Burzliwego życia Lejzorka Rojtszwańca” w reżyserii Piotra Bikonta obfituje w sceny komiczne, niekiedy wręcz slapstikowe, ale błędem byłoby sądzić, że spektakl ten jest wyłącznie kompilacją zabawnych historyjek. Ze względu na swoje refleksje natury filozoficznej oraz szczerą i dobroduszną mądrość życiową postać Lejzorka Rojtszwańca często porównuje się z wojakiem Szwejkiem. Trudno zatem o lepszą gwarancję doskonałej rozrywki.

„Burzliwe życie Lejzorka Rojtszwańca” w reżyserii Piotra Bikonta, z udziałem Joanny Fidler i Pawła Pabisiaka, zostanie wystawione dwukrotnie w dużej sali wystawowej Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego: 2 i 3 kwietnia 2016 roku. Oba spektakle rozpoczną się o godzinie 19. Przedstawienie dla widzów od 12 roku życia.

Bilety w cenie 30 zł do nabycia w kasie Instytutu.

Szczegółowe informacje można uzyskać pod numerem telefonu: (22) 827 92 21 w godzinach pracy ŻIH.

Liczba miejsc ograniczona!


twoje uwagi, linki, wlasne artykuly, lub wiadomosci przeslij do: webmaster@reunion68.com

 


Obama’s Final Solution for the Jewish State

Obama’s Final Solution for the Jewish State

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam



Obama’s campaign against Israel has run into one major obstacle… Muslim terrorists.

Every Obama attempt to force Israel to make concessions to the Islamic terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority has been rejected by the terrorists. No matter how much Obama got Israel to offer, it was never enough.

Abbas, the leader of the PLO, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, has turned down every Obama offer culminating with the latest offer brought now by Biden on a visit where Abbas’ political movement had celebrated the murder of Taylor Force, an Iraq War veteran. Like the “moderate Taliban” and the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama’s outreach to Muslim terrorists failed because of the terrorists.

In the last major effort at a peace process with the PLO, Obama attempted to bypass this problem by effectively having Kerry negotiate with Israel on behalf of the terrorists. Kerry pretended to “facilitate” negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas, but in reality it was only Kerry and Netanyahu at the table. Kerry pressured Israel into making numerous concessions to the PLO while negotiating for the PLO.

As one Israeli official put it, “At one point we discovered that throughout the entire period, the Americans didn’t actually talk to the Palestinians, only to us.”

According a senior American official, the Obama-Kerry position was closer to the PLO side and so they didn’t even bother negotiating these arrangements with the PLO.

Obama and Kerry had explicitly become proxy negotiators for an Islamic terrorist organization.

But the Obama plan to impose his own framework on Israel failed once Abbas was brought into the loop. The terror leader rejected the Kerry plan. Just as he rejected Biden’s latest offer. Not even a two hour meeting with Obama in the Oval Office could change his mind.

Once again, Obama had been hung out to dry by the Islamic terrorists he had been trying to help. No matter how close his position is to the terrorists, it’s never close enough.

Kerry nevertheless blamed Israel, not Abbas. The White House position is that it’s Netanyahu’s fault. In a recent Atlantic piece, Obama blamed Netanyahu for being too “fearful” to bring peace. While this makes for great propaganda justifying further hostility toward Israel and Netanyahu, the actual obstacle is Abbas. You can’t negotiate with Islamic terrorists. All you can do is surrender to them.

Abbas has shown that he won’t accept a peace plan. Negotiations have failed every time. And every failure undermines the Obama narrative that Israel is to blame. It’s hard to keep that myth alive when Netanyahu agrees to negotiate and Abbas doesn’t, when Israel makes concessions and the PLO won’t.

And yet Obama is determined to achieve his goals for Israel and the Middle East before he leaves office. To do that, he has to bypass the negotiations process and impose his own solution without having to get consent for it from the PLO. That means that like the Iran deal, it won’t be binding on terrorists. But it will be binding on the United States and on Israel. It will go through an international forum such as the United Nations to avoid the humiliation of Abbas rejecting yet another Obama offer.

The peace process with the PLO has amounted to decades of Israeli concessions in exchange for nothing. Even the most hypothetical concessions quickly became the default starting point in the next round of peace proposals. Every experimental measure, no matter how it failed, was soon set in stone.

The Obama framework would be a radical set of demands for Israeli concessions disguised as a peace plan. These are demands that Israel could not afford to agree to, but that the terrorists would still consider insufficient. There is no carrot here. Only a set of heavier and sharper sticks.

Israel is expected to agree to the demands in fake multilateral negotiations with the terrorists, that are really only negotiations between Obama and Netanyahu, or Obama will present his own wish list for Israeli concessions unilaterally to the UN. Either Israel kicks Obama’s football one more time in the hopes of getting something out of it or it doesn’t kick the football and loses even more as the US joins an anti-Israel pressure bloc at the United Nations to impose those same terms on the Jewish State.

Netanyahu has tried to run out the clock on Obama. Now that the clock is actually running out, the danger hour is here. Obama is ideologically opposed to Israel. He has nursed a personal grudge against Netanyahu. And he refuses to leave office without a trophy to justify his disastrous foreign policy.

Obama’s support for Islamic terrorists has led to disaster everywhere else in the region. Israel is his last bet for making his program of supporting Islamic terrorists finally pay off in a political jackpot.

A final agreement in which both sides will agree to coexist is not on the table here. If there were even a possibility of that, Obama would not have cut Abbas out of the process the way that he did. Instead the peace process has been boiled down to its essential element of pressuring Israel into expanding the existing the PLO terror state while getting nothing in return except more terrorism.

The next step in a process that led to rockets falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is supposed to move forward with the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes and international troops deploying in Israel.

All these were already on the table at the last negotiations. And the terms will only get worse.

This is not a peace process since peace is not the expected or desired outcome. The only agenda here is the expansion of a terror state at the expense of Israel, at the expense of the lives, homes and property of the Jews living there, and at the expense of the future of the Jewish state. No one seriously believes that Obama’s framework will bring peace. Instead it will increase terrorism while moving on to demands for more territory even deeper inside Israel, whether through territorial claims or the right of return.

Obama knows that he can’t even achieve an agreement with the terrorists. He also knows that Israel will attempt to negotiate in good faith. So he’s preparing to trash the last remnants of the negotiating protocols to simply impose a set of concessions on Israel as an international framework for peace.

The previous negotiations featured PLO demands for concessions as a pre-condition to talks. Obama will dispense with the talks entirely and skip right to the concessions. There may be a meaningless acknowledgement slipped in there that Israel is the “nation-state of the Jews”, a point that the PLO won’t acknowledge and that is a formality that achieves nothing of any strategic and territorial worth. But it will be a mandate for the drastic expansion of a failed Islamic terror state that has abandoned even its ritual fake elections and that subsidizes its Islamic terrorism with American taxpayer money.

At the last negotiations, Obama’s people openly served as proxy negotiators for the terrorists. Now they’re going to skip straight to imposing the demands of the terrorists on the Jewish State.

To justify this radical course of action, this final break with the pretense that the Democrats are supportive of Israel, a hate campaign against Israel and Netanyahu has been whipped up in the media. The familiar narrative blames Israel for the lack of peace, even though it’s Abbas who rejected Obama’s own peace offers more than once. The demonization of the Jewish State is a necessary prerequisite to the final betrayal. Israel has to be depicted as utterly unwilling to make peace with the terrorists, forcing Obama to impose his own solution. Each White House attack on Israel was preceded by propaganda laying the groundwork for its actions by demonizing Israel and Netanyahu.

The more you hear this “Big Lie” in the media that Israel is to blame for everything, the closer Obama is coming to his final solution for the Jewish State.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


twoje uwagi, linki, wlasne artykuly, lub wiadomosci przeslij do: webmaster@reunion68.com

 


Nowosci z Memri.org

Memri.org

Najnowsze


24 marca 2016 SD# 6361 – Publicysta “Al-Sharq Al-Awsat”” Wiosna Arabska ujawniła nieudolność opozycji arabskiej wszelkich odcieni

W artykule w wychodzącej w Londynie gazecie saudyjskiej ”Al-Sharq Al-Awsat”, Uthman Al-Mirghani pisał, że Wiosna Arabska ujawniła nie tylko nieudolność reżimów arabskich, ale także nieudolność rozmaitych opozycyjnych ruchów arabskich do ustanowienia alternatywy do reżimów tyrańskich, które zostały obalone. Powiedział, że te ruchy opozycyjne wszystkich odcieni politycznych – liberalne, lewicowe, prawicowe i islamskie – były równie oportunistyczne, egocentryczne i dyktatorskie, jak reżimy, które usunęły. Ponadto, napisał, zdystansowały się one od narodów arabskich tak bardzo, że ludzie tęsknili teraz do poprzednich reżimów. W świetle bezsiły i nieudolności wszelkiego rodzaju opozycji w świecie arabskim, dodał, nic dziwnego, że młodzi ludzie porzucili te ruchy i zwrócili się do „partii on line” jako areny opozycji, by dać wyraz swojej rozpaczy.

24 marca 2016 SA# 415 – Popierająca ISIS agencja medialna Al-Battar publikuje film wideo celebrujący zamachy w Brukseli

24 marca 2016 popierająca ISIS agencja medialna Al-Battar opublikowała film wideo zatytułowany “Wychodźstwo islamu i zamachy brukselskie”, przedstawiający sceny dewastacji z zamachu 22 marca 2016 r. na lotnisko Zaventem i stacje metra Maalbeek. Wideo pokazuje również zamach na „Charlie Hebdo” ze stycznia 2015 r. i pokazuje dwóch belgijskich terrorystów, Abula Ka’kę Al Baljikiego i Dhul-Karnajna Al-Baljikiego, zabitych podczas tej akcji. Wideo, które jest częściowo po angielsku, a częściowo po arabsku z angielskimi napisami, stwierdza, że takie ataki będą trwały jak długo muzułmanie są celem nalotów w Syrii i Iraku. W jednej z części jest także potępienie muzułmanów na Zachodzie, którzy są przeciwni zamachom przeprowadzanym przez ISIS.

23 marca 2016 SD# 6358 – Były generał IRGC, bliski Najwyższemu Przywódcy Chameneiemu: “Bahrajn jest prowincją Iranu i powinien być przyłączony [do niego]”

17 marca 2016 r. irańska agencja informacyjna Gam News doniosła, że były generał Korpusu Strażników Rewolucji Islamskiej (IRGC), Saeed Kassemi, który jest członkiem Kwatery Głównej Ammar, think tanku doradzającego Najwyższemu Przywódcy, Alemu Chameneiemu, powiedział, że Iran powinien zaanektować Bahrajn. Powiedział to 16 marca 2016 r. podczas konferencji “Dwieście lat oporu przeciwko imperializmowi” w Buszehr.

Należy zanotować, że w 2007 r. Hossein Szariatmadari, redaktor naczelny gazety irańskiej “Kayhan” i towarzysz Chameneiego, powiedział podobnie, że Bahrajn jest nieodłączną częścią Iranu i powinien zostać mu przywrócony; patrz MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 379, Tension in Iran-Bahrain Relations After Kayhan Editor Claims Bahrain Is Inseparable Part of Iran , 3 sierpnia 2007.Stosunki Iran-Bahrain są napięte od lat; patrz także Inquiry and Analysis No. 972, Iran Calls On Shi’ites In Bahrain To Topple Their Country’s Sunni Aal Khalifa Regime , 29 maja 2013.

22 marca 2016 SD# 6357 – ISIS: Dżihad w Palestynie nie ma pierwszeństwa przed dżihadem gdzie indziej

Poniższy raport jest darmową próbką MEMRI Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). Informacja o prenumeracie JTTM znajduje się tutaj .

Artykuł w 22. numerze oficjalnego pisma Państwa Islamskiego (ISIS) “Al-Naba”, zatytułowany “Beit Al-Maqdis [1] – Pierwsza i najważniejsza kwestia Prawa Szariatu” [2] przedstawia stanowisko organizacji w sprawie Palestyny i wojny z Izraelem, zarówno z perspektywy ideologicznej, jak praktycznej. W artykule stwierdza się, że walka przeciwko Izraelowi nie ma pierwszeństwa przed dżihadem przeciwko niewiernym gdzieindziej, a ponadto, że walka przeciwko niewiernym wewnątrz – to jest przeciwko muzułmańskim władcom i rządom – jest nawet jeszcze ważniejsza. Według ISIS priorytetowe traktowanie wojny z Izraelem jest odchyleniem od zasad islamu, ponieważ celem dżihadu jest zaprowadzenie religii i rządów prawa szariatu. Ponieważ cały świat poza terenami opanowanymi przez ISIS jest rządzony przez niewiernych, autorzy artykułu pytają, dlaczego wojna przeciwko Żydom ma priorytet przed wojną przeciwko innym niewiernym. Stwierdzają także, że ograniczenie celu dżihadu do wojny wyłącznie przeciwko Żydom jest zabronioną zmianą praw Allaha. Zdaniem ISIS, jeśli jakieś miejsce ma być traktowane priorytetowo w dżihadzie, to powinno to być wyzwolenie islamskich miejsc świętych Mekki i Medyny ze szponów rodziny królewskiej Saudów.

21 marca 2016 SD# 6356 – Członek irańskiego Madżlisu walczy wraz z IRGC w Syrii

17 marca 2016 r. irańska strona Facebooka poświęcona nowościom z frontu bitew w Syrii i Iraku [1] doniosła, że członek irańskiego Madżlisu i duchowny, Ali Mohammad Bozorgvari, walczy w szeregach Korpusu Strażników Rewolucji Islamskiej (IRGC) w Syrii i zamieścił swoje zdjęcia wraz z oficerami i żołnierzami IRGC.

Doniesienie brzmi: “Fotografie zrobione 11 marca na drodze Damaszek-Aleppo. Inne zrobione 12 marca koło wsi Sahan na zachód od Hamy. Na tym obszarze nie panuje ISIS, ale zbrojni rebelianci syryjscy. Grupowe zdjęcie [poniżej] pokazuje [Bozorgvariego z] generałem irańskim Szahabi-farem [drugi rząd, trzeci od lewej], byłym dowódcą IRGC w okręgu Kochiloujeh, który ma wiele zdjęć z dowódcą Siły Kuds, Qassemem Soleimanim w Iraku”.


twoje uwagi, linki, wlasne artykuly, lub wiadomosci przeslij do: webmaster@reunion68.com

 


Jan Gross’ Order of Merit

TabletJan Gross’ Order of Merit

Anna Bikont


Header

The groundbreaking scholar of Polish anti-Semitism is caught up in a toxic new nationalism that seeks to edit shameful persecution of Jews out of history

1.

We Poles had our presidential race last year. In a televised debate—the most important debate of the race—the two main candidates asked each other questions. The first round of these questions, posed by candidate Andrzej Duda, did not deal with the state of the Polish economy, nor relations with Ukraine and Russia. It had to do instead with a crime committed over 70 years ago in Jedwabne, a village in northeastern Poland where Polish Catholics incinerated their Jewish neighbors. This event was uncovered decades later by Polish-American historian Jan Gross, now a professor at Princeton. Duda admonished his opponent, then-incumbent President Bronisław Komorowski, for allowing Poles to be “wrongfully accused by others for participating in the Holocaust.” He asked why the president failed to defend the good name of Poland.

The election was won by Andrzej Duda, the candidate who resolutely rejected the painful truth of Jedwabne. The new president then proclaimed a “new historical policy strategy,” which would enhance the perception of Poland in the world. That policy is already in place. And an important component of it is a campaign against Jan Gross. In January, President Duda went to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for an opinion on the question of rescinding Gross’ Polish Order of Merit. According to his spokesman, the offices of the president had been inundated with letters bearing precisely this request from outraged citizens. The president could not simply ignore—or even silence—those voices.

This came across like a grim joke, given that in the freezing days that followed thousands marched in locations all over Poland to protest the president’s new policies, and yet the voices of the protesters has gone completely unheard. We were protesting the threat to democracy suggested by the president’s refusal to swear in three legally appointed judges to the Constitutional Tribunal. We protested—and the demonstrations took place in 36 cities—in the name of freedom, against the actions of a government restricting civil liberties in a variety of ways: through new surveillance regulations, new criminal procedures, the politicization of public services and the appropriation of public media by the ruling party. We write letters, too. They go unanswered. In defense of Gross, Poland’s most prominent intellectuals produced letters of protest, and historian Timothy Snyder (Yale University) announced he would renounce his own Polish order.

Gross, whose Order is now at stake, was previously decorated twice by the Polish state.

The first time was in 1996 (before he began writing the books that would upset so many Poles). He received the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland for his books on the underground structures of the state during World War II and Polish children sent to Siberia, as well as for his personal record of opposing Soviet rule, for his participation in the protests of 1968 and his support of the independent resistance movement after his emigration.

The second time was symbolic. It occurred on July 10, 2001, the 60th anniversary of the crime in Jedwabne. Then-President Aleksander Kwaśniewski apologized to the victims in a ceremony televised worldwide. All of this was due to a relatively slim volume written by Gross entitled Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, which had been published the year before. A book that set off an avalanche, the biggest debate in Poland since it had regained its independence in 1989.

This second Order of Merit is what the regime now wishes to revoke from Gross and to erase from public memory. And while they’re at it, they’re also revoking the medal he received for absolutely uncontroversial service to Poland, even according to the newly imposed political criteria.

2.

A few years ago in Krakow I watched as a cluster of photojournalists elbowed their way up to Gross, trying to get a good shot of him in a kippah. It was at an event centered around his book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz, which talked about the Kielce pogrom and other instances of Jewish murders immediately following the war. The event was organized by the city’s annual Jewish Festival and took place in the Kupa Synagogue, site of much cultural activity, and every man in attendance received a kippah at the entrance. The pictures of Gross wearing Jewish headgear made the front page of the papers and were shown on TV. The message was clear: Gross is a Jew, therefore a foreigner, an outsider, therefore lying. It might be worth noting here that since World War II, as a result of the Holocaust and the shifting of borders, almost all Poles have been of Polish ancestry.

Jan Gross’ ancestry is as it should be on his mother’s side, but evidently that is insufficient. Hanna Szumańska-Gross came from a landed family; after writing his book on Jedwabne, Jan even discovered that the first castellan, or official, of the Łomża territory on which the tragedy of the Jedwabne Jews occurred, was his ancestor. During World War II Hanna Szumańska-Gross worked for the underground Home Army (AK). Distributing the AK’s illegal publications, she encountered Zygmunt Gross, who was in hiding, and after the war she became his wife. When Jan Gross was rebuked for never writing about the aid provided to Jews by Poles, he explained that he himself was the fruit of such aid, but what interested him was what could have happened to make Poles who did save Jews during the Holocaust afraid to talk about it after the war.

JanGross

Jan Gross has performed myriad services for Poland (as in fact did his Jewish forebears). It could be said that he played a part in the resistance since childhood: In high school he founded an illegal organization called the Seekers of Contradiction Club with Adam Michnik at the age of just 14. (Michnik was 15.) At the University of Warsaw, he was one of a group of students who organized acts of protest. After a particularly vocal rally in the courtyard of the university in March, 1968, Gross was arrested and spent five months in prison. In 1969 he and his parents left the country as a result of the anti-Semitic campaigns. Like many of those émigrés, who were essentially thrown out of Poland and whose citizenship was revoked, Gross supported the Polish resistance movement, spreading word about its activities abroad. He co-founded the fantastic émigré journal Aneks. He wrote his dissertation at Yale on the Polish underground nation. That later became his book Polish Society Under German Occupation. In the mid-1970s Irena Grudzińska-Gross and Jan Gross happened upon unique documentation of Polish citizens deported into the depths of the USSR. They published this in Polish in a book titled In 1940, Mother, They Sent Us to Siberia. In the ’80s, on the basis of documents taken primarily from the Hoover Archive, Gross wrote the book Revolution From Abroad: Soviet Conquest of Poland’s Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia.

He told me: “I wrote about the persecution of the Poles, and Jews were not part of Poland’s history. Jews were studied by scholars from other fields. Even I blindly accepted this distinction.”

Until finally he came across some documents that would forever change his writing. First, an unknown excerpt from a report by Jan Karski, courier and emissary of the Polish Underground State authorities. Karski wrote that the relationship of society more generally to the Jews was largely indifferent, often merciless, and that this issue created “something like a narrow footbridge where Germans and a large contingent of Polish society meet amicably enough.” Then he came upon the testimony of Szmul Wasersztejn from Jedwabne describing how his family, as well as an entire Jewish population, was incinerated in a barn by Polish neighbors. This gave rise to Gross’ book Neighbors, which forever altered Polish consciousness. Though of course, not the consciousness of all Poles. Jarosław Kaczyński, the founder of what is now the ruling party of Poland, Law and Justice (PiS), and the key player in Polish politics, has stated that Neighbors is anti-Polish libel and the result of Gross’ anti-Polish hysteria.

After Neighbors came Fear and Golden Harvest, co-authored by Irena Grudzińska-Gross. The release of each of these books was a major event in Poland, arousing fierce debate. Gross’ style contributes to this ferocity: It is emotional, electrifying, and it forces the reader to really grapple with the material. Golden Harvest opens with a photograph of Poles caught by the police after the war digging up gold teeth and other valuables from the terrain around the Treblinka concentration camp. The authors write, “We begin to understand … that the usual response of a Pole to Jews encountered on the Aryan side … was to unmask them rather than to offer them shelter. … This is why the photograph of Treblinka’s peasants—also, undoubtedly, ‘normal, ordinary, hardworking, religious, and possessing a whole array of virtues’ ”—in addition to evoking disgust, is so frightening: We cannot know for sure that it will not one day be pulled from our own family album.”

Alongside the publication of Gross’ books there was a surge in plays, artistic statements, and novels about Jews in Poland. I’ll give just one example showing how what Gross has written has entered into the popular realm. In a Polish novel Night of the Living Jews, the main character is a resident of an apartment block built up on the site of the Warsaw Ghetto, which was burned to the ground. Murdered Jews begin to escape from the basement of his building and rise up to his apartment. In the novel there is a Grandpa, as though taken straight out of a family photo album, who delivers a monologue to the main character and his girlfriend about how he spent the war: “We used to party, too, you know—you think you invented all this? I remember how I’d meet up with my pals and go out looking for girls, go out dancing, drinking, just go crazy, have a bite. I’d sit in town with my pockets full of gold teeth. The world was our oyster!” Interestingly the author of this book, Igor Ostachowicz, was at the time of writing it a high-up official in the previous government, that of Donald Tusk. This could undoubtedly not occur today.

3.

In September of 2015, Gross wrote a piece for Project Syndicate in which he worried about the lack of solidarity with the refugee crisis in Europe as it unfolded. He located the reasons for this lack in Polish attitudes during WWII and in their not having reckoned with their past, when “Poles killed more Jews during the war than they did Germans.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that this text was “historically inaccurate, pernicious, and offensive to Poland,” and Polish Prosecution opened an investigation into Gross. The basis for this was an article in the Criminal Code. “Publicly insulting the Polish Nation or Republic is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years.”

The foundation aptly named Good Name Redoubt—Polish Anti-Defamation League organized a petition and a letter-writing campaign to try to get Gross’ Order revoked. Examples of the foundation’s style include: “Gross is an extremely dangerous slanderer”; “Gross has crossed all the possible lines of spitting on Poland”; “Gross is a lethal threat to Poland.” Among the members of the board of this foundation is the deputy prime minister and the minister of culture, newly appointed by the right-wing regime.

In January, President Duda asked the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for an opinion as to whether or not it would be possible to revoke Gross’ official decorations (it was at the behest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Gross received his Order). I do not think it will come to that, nor is the actual revocation of the Order the most important issue here. What matters is the scapegoating, the sowing of hate, and the subsequent closing of ranks in an imaginary siege. When I searched on Google for Gross and Magierowski (the head of the president’s press office, who has publicly spoken out against Gross), the result was the latest installments from his Twitter account, at the top of which was someone’s tweet on Gross: “Take away the fucker’s citizenship. Piece of shit!” It is this tone that is slowly increasing in volume in Poland. The right is becoming more and more extreme, widening the range of its enemies, speaking increasingly the language of hate. Jan Gross’ children told me that they asked their father to pull his hat down over his eyes when he was on the street in Poland, fearing for his safety.

It all gives a sense of déjà vu. In Communist times the authorities also felt they could determine what was permissible to say and publish. You could end up behind bars for three years for views expressed in a private letter sent abroad. The worst offense was publishing a critique in the columns of the press of the German Federal Republic. Anti-German resentment made many Poles think the authorities were right in this. Jan Gross’ piece about refugees, disseminated by the American Project Syndicate, was published in the German newspaper Die Welt, among other places. Now whenever anyone mentions Gross’ article in the Polish papers, on TV or in official statements, that mention always includes the ominous words Die Welt. And unfortunately, it works. In a way it’s fascinating how our right-wing government now replicates old communist habits.

It would be difficult to delude ourselves that the idea of revoking Gross’ order for a piece of journalism is a one-time freak exception. The attack on Gross is not only an attack on Gross. It is an attack on freedom of speech and an attack on the independence of scholarly work. Further installments are to be expected.

Read more : Jan Gross’ Order of Merit


twoje uwagi, linki, wlasne artykuly, lub wiadomosci przeslij do: webmaster@reunion68.com