Archive | 2021/06/06

Zbrodnia w Hucie Pieniackiej. Udział ukraińskich ochotników znów jest tuszowany

Pogrzeb dwóch ukraińskich policjantów, którzy zginęli podczas pierwszej potyczki w Hucie Pieniackiej (Fot. domena publiczna)


Zbrodnia w Hucie Pieniackiej. Udział ukraińskich ochotników znów jest tuszowany

Grzegorz Motyka


Zdaniem Dmytra Czobita zbrodni w Hucie Pieniackiej dopuścili się nawet nie tyle Niemcy, ile polscy folksdojcze ze Śląska.

.

Przypomnijmy podstawowe fakty.

W 1943 r. Niemcy zaczęli formowanie w Galicji Wschodniej ukraińskiej 14. Dywizji SS „Galizien”. Z części ochotników utworzono kilka pułków policyjnych traktowanych jako jednostki szkoleniowe.

23 lutego 1944 r. patrol takich ochotników z 4. Pułku SS w starciu z polską samoobroną Huty Pieniackiej stracił dwóch ludzi.

Niemieckie dowództwo w odwecie poleciło zetrzeć wieś wraz z mieszkańcami z powierzchni ziemi. 28 lutego 4. Pułk dokonał pacyfikacji, mordując od 500 do 800 ludzi.

Dywizja SS „Galizien” w Hucie Pieniackiej

Udział ukraińskich ochotników w mordzie od dawna próbowano tuszować. Powoływano się przy tym na raport świadka wydarzeń Mychajła Chronowjata, z którego miało rzekomo wynikać, że zbrodni dopuściło się niemieckie komando SS. Jednak treść tego dokumentu w sposób oczywisty potwierdza udział w niej galicyjskich ochotników. Więcej, jego wymowa jest wręcz przytłaczająca.

Według Chronowjata 4. Pułk zajął o świcie wieś bez większego oporu słabej samoobrony. Mieszkańców wypędzono z domów i poprowadzono do kościoła, odnajdując przy tym ukrytych Żydów. Irytację ochotników wywołała konieczność puszczenia wolno niektórych osób, gdyż miały podpisaną folkslistę (a więc w świetle okupacyjnego prawa były Niemcami).

Owszem, Chronowjat zaznaczył, iż po wyjściu 4. Pułku jakieś niezidentyfikowane niemieckie komando spaliło wieś do cna, ale nawet jeśli nie dopuścił się w tym miejscu dezinformacji, to z jego raportu jasno wynika, że galicyjscy ochotnicy odegrali aktywną rolę w pacyfikacji faktycznie bezbronnej wsi.

Tragedia Huty Pieniackiej

Warto wspomnieć, że niemieckie dowództwo traktowało członków 4. Pułku jako żołnierzy dywizji SS „Galizien”. Dobitnie o tym świadczy fakt, iż zabitych pod Hutą Pieniacką 23 lutego żołnierzy uznano za pierwszych poległych tej jednostki, a w ich uroczystym pogrzebie wziął udział sam gubernator dystryktu Otto Wachter.

Pomimo to Czobit neguje jakąkolwiek ukraińską odpowiedzialność za tragedię Huty Pieniackiej. Z jednej strony rozpisuje się szeroko o przyczynach pacyfikacji, pisząc o polskiej „okupacji” Galicji, ucisku ukraińskiej ludności i pomocy, jakiej mieszkańcy Huty udzielali Armii Krajowej oraz sowieckiej partyzantce. Z drugiej zaś kategorycznie stwierdza, że „w czasie niszczenia Huty Pieniackiej nie było w niej żadnego żołnierza dywizji SS »Galizien«”.

Owszem, parę kompanii galicyjskich ochotników zajęło wieś i „pobyło” w niej kilka godzin, lecz byli oni… zbyt „przemęczeni nocnym przemarszem”, by dopuścić się zbrodni, i dlatego na czas egzekucji zastąpili ich inni żołnierze.

Galicyjscy ochotnicy mogli co najwyżej zabić jakieś pojedyncze osoby. Nawet Czobit nie zdołał podważyć możliwości, iż spalili oni żywcem komendanta samoobrony Kazimierza Wojciechowskiego. Zbudował więc całą opowieść o wzburzeniu żołnierzy SS na widok odnalezionych ciał poległych w dniu 23 lutego kolegów, na których odkryto jakoby ślady tortur i wycięte swastyki. W efekcie, jak komentuje Czobit: „Jedno nieludzkie barbarzyństwo doprowadziło do nie mniej straszliwego okrucieństwa”.

Polacy nas uciskali, potem sami siebie wymordowali

Mordu na mieszkańcach Huty zdaniem Czobita dopuścili się nawet nie tyle Niemcy, ile polscy folksdojcze ze Śląska wcieleni do 4. Dywizji SS. Choć tego nie dopowiada, to w uszach przeciętnego czytelnika sens jego wywodu brzmi następująco: Polacy nas uciskali, potem sami siebie wymordowali, a teraz próbują zrzucić winę na innych… Co najbardziej przykre, pod „rewelacjami” Czobita podpisało się w roli recenzentów kilku znanych ukraińskich naukowców. Pewnie uczynili to, sądząc, że bronią dobrego imienia narodu. W efekcie pokazali jedynie, iż zasady naukowej rzetelności są dla nich pustymi słowami.

To prawda, że decyzje o zgłaszaniu się na ochotnika do dywizji SS „Galizien” były motywowane patriotycznymi pobudkami i wypływały z marzeń o niepodległej Ukrainie.

Wielu Polaków dobrze to rozumie. Z tego jednak w żaden sposób nie może wynikać przyzwolenie na przemilczenie, a tym bardziej na zakłamywanie historycznych faktów o zbrodniach popełnionych na niewinnej ludności cywilnej.


Prof. Grzegorz Motyka – historyk, politolog, pracownik Instytutu Studiów Politycznych PAN

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


How Did Hamas Become the Darling of the West?

How Did Hamas Become the Darling of the West?

Judea Pearl


Hundreds of protesters and activists shut down part of 2nd Avenue as they gather in front of the Israeli Mission to the United Nations (U.N.) on May 18, 2021 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

In February 2009, I wrote an essay about a symposium at UCLA that marked the beginning of Hamas’s penetration into academic circles. I also described the culture of fear that had overtaken many of my colleagues who felt it was unsafe to admit to supporting Israel. Twelve years later, in the wake of the most recent conflict between Israel and Gaza and the ensuing antisemitism carried out on our campuses and in our streets, I have revised and updated my original essay, which is just as relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Remember Eugène Ionesco’s “Rhinoceros”? Written in the late 1950s, the play describes the transformation of a quiet, peaceful town into anarchy when one after another of its residents is transformed into a lumbering, thick-skinned brute. Only Berenger, a stand-in for the playwright, tries to hold out against the collective rush into rhinocerism.

First, the townspeople notice a stray rhinoceros rumbling down the street. No one takes a great deal of notice other than to say that it “made a lot of dust.’’ It’s a “stupid quadruped not worth talking about,’’ although it does trample one woman’s cat.

Before long, an ethical debate develops over the rhino way of life versus the human way of life. ‘’Why not just leave them alone,’’ a friend advises Berenger. ‘’You get used to it.’’ The debate is quickly muted into blind acceptance of the rhino ethic, and the entire town joins the marching herd. Berenger finds himself alone, partly resisting, partly enjoying the uncontrolled sounds coming out his own throat: “Honk, Honk, Honk.”

These sounds from Ionesco’s play have echoed in my ears twice. First in 2009, when Hamas gave its premier performance at UCLA and, second, this past week, when rhinos roamed the streets of Los Angeles shouting, “Honk, Honk, Honk.”

THESE SOUNDS FROM IONESCO’S PLAY HAVE ECHOED IN MY EARS TWICE. FIRST IN 2009, WHEN HAMAS GAVE ITS PREMIER PERFORMANCE AT UCLA AND, SECOND, THIS PAST WEEK, WHEN RHINOS ROAMED THE STREETS OF LOS ANGELES SHOUTING, “HONK, HONK, HONK.”

Let’s start in January 2009, when an e-mail from a colleague at Indiana University queried: “Being at UCLA, you must know about this symposium…pretty bad.” Attached to it was Roberta Seid’s report on the now infamous “Human Rights and Gaza” symposium held a day earlier at UCLA.

To refresh readers’ memory, this symposium, organized by UCLA’s Center for Near East Studies (CNES), was billed as a discussion of human rights in Gaza. Instead, the director of the center, Susan Slyomovics, invited four speakers with long histories of demonizing Israel for a panel that Seid describes as a reenactment of a “1920 Munich beer hall.” Not only did the panelists portray Hamas as a guiltless, peace-seeking, unjustly provoked organization, but they also bashed Israel, her motives, her character, her birth and conception, and led the excited audience into chanting “Zionism is Nazism,” “F—, f— Israel,” in the best tradition of rhino liturgy.

But the primary impact of the event became evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, partially informed students woke up to read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars Say Attack on Gaza an Abuse of Human Rights,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached, and from which the word “terror” and the genocidal agenda of Hamas were conspicuously absent. This mock verdict, presented as an outcome of supposedly dispassionate scholarship, is where Hamas culture scored its first triumph—the first inch of academic respectability, the first inroad into Western minds.

Naturally, when students complained to me about how abused and frightened they felt during the symposium and how concerned they were about the direction taken by the Center for Near East Studies, I felt terribly guilty. “We should have anticipated such travesties,” I told myself, “we, the Jewish faculty at UCLA, should have preempted it with a true symposium on human rights, one that honestly tackles the tough moral and legal dilemmas that the Gaza situation presents to civilized society: How does society protect the human rights of a civilian population in which rocket-launching terrorists are hiding? How does one reconcile the right of a country to defend itself with the wrong of killing women and children when the former entails the latter? What is a legitimate military target?”

In 2009, these were new dilemmas that had not surfaced prior to the days of rockets and missiles, and we, the Jewish faculty, ought to have pioneered their study. Instead, we allowed Hamas’s sympathizers to frame the academic agenda. How can we face our students from the safety of our offices, I thought, when they deal with anti-Israel abuse on a daily basis—in the cafeteria, the library and the classroom—and as alarming reports of mob violence are arriving from other campuses?

HOW CAN WE FACE OUR STUDENTS FROM THE SAFETY OF OUR OFFICES, I THOUGHT, WHEN THEY DEAL WITH ANTI-ISRAEL ABUSE ON A DAILY BASIS—IN THE CAFETERIA, THE LIBRARY AND THE CLASSROOM—AND AS ALARMING REPORTS OF MOB VIOLENCE ARE ARRIVING FROM OTHER CAMPUSES?

Burdened with guilt, I called some colleagues but quickly realized that a few had already made the shift to a strange-sounding language, not unlike “Honk, Honk.” Some had entered the debate phase, arguing over the rhino way of life versus the human way of life, and the majority, while still speaking in a familiar English vocabulary, were frightened beyond anything I had seen at UCLA in the 40 years that I had served on its faculty.

Colleagues told me about lecturers whose appointments were terminated, professors whose promotion committees received “incriminating” letters, and about the impossibility of revealing one’s pro-Israel convictions without losing grants, editorial board memberships, or invitations to panels and conferences. And all, literally all, swore me into strict secrecy. Together, we entered the era of “the new Marranos.”

Exaggeration? Jewish paranoia? Hardly. I invite skeptics to repeat the private experiment that I conducted among Jewish faculty in a reception hosted in 2008  by the Center for Jewish Studies at UCLA. I asked each of them privately: “Tell me, aren’t you a Zionist?” I then counted the number of times my conversant would look to the right, then to the left, before whispering: “Yes, but…” I am sure that anyone who repeats this experiment will be as alarmed as I was about the level of academic terror that descended on U.S. campuses, especially in the humanities and political and social sciences. Our generation of Jewish students are paying dearly for the failure of our academic leadership to acknowledge, assess and form a unified front to combat this academic terror.

And this brings me to 2021 and to the latest war in Gaza. To the New York Times front page depicting the victims of Israel’s defense operation, as if they had never heard the word “Hamas” or read Hamas’s charter. To CNN’s anchor Fareed Zakaria asserting that Israel is a military superpower, hence Hamas does not pose an existential threat to it. To NYT analyst Nicholas Kristof asserting (in an interview with Bill Maher) that Israel, too, positions its military headquarters among civilians. To UCLA Department of Asian American Studies stating (on its official University website) its “Solidarity with  Palestine” and its authoritative understanding that such “violence and intimidation are but the latest manifestation of seventy-three years of settler colonialism, racial apartheid, and occupation.”

To the Statement of scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies from various universities who, in the Forward,condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza.” To members of If Not Now, saying Kaddish for fallen Hamas fighters (among other victims). And, finally, to the mob roaming the streets of Los Angeles and shouting, “Honk, Honk, From the River to the Sea.”

Looking back on the past 12 years, there is no question that Hamas has gained a major uplift in status and respectability. It has become, in fact, the darling of the West. True, seasoned commentators remember to add the obligatory, “We are not condoning Hamas, of course, but…”

“But what?” I ask.

Doesn’t Fareed Zakaria imply that it is not the end of the world if 300,000 Israeli children continue to bleed sleeplessly for another 20 years under Hamas rockets? Didn’t Nicholas Kristof imply that if those children suffer post-traumatic scars for the rest of their lives that it is Israel’s problem because Israel, too, positions its headquarters in civilian areas?  Western analysts will go to any absurd lengths to fabricate symmetry between Israel and Hamas, because symmetry is our new goddess of right and wrong.

BUT LET’S NOT FORGET THAT IT ALL STARTED IN ACADEMIA, WITH A HERD OF PASSIONATE INTELLECTUALS WHO MANAGED TO HIJACK THE NAME OF THEIR ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, WHICH HARDLY CARED.

But let’s not forget that it all started in academia, with a herd of passionate intellectuals who managed to hijack the name of their academic institution, which hardly cared. Do not blame them. After all, intellectuals are trained to cheer their peers when the marching band starts playing, and academic institutions are too slow to understand what is being done in their names. Sadly, as Ionesco understood so well, we are all herd-honking organisms. Please take another look at the rhinos roaming the streets of Los Angeles, here, and see for yourself how hard it is to hold back and not join them with: Honk, Honk!


Judea Pearl is a Chancellor professor at UCLA, co-author of “The Book of Why,” and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation (www.danielpearl.org), named after his son. He and his wife, Ruth, are editors of “I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl” (Jewish Light, 2004), winner of the National Jewish Book Award.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


THE STRATEGIC CONSEQUENCES OF BENNETT’S MEGALOMANIA

THE STRATEGIC CONSEQUENCES OF BENNETT’S MEGALOMANIA

Caroline Glick


The government about to be formed will be the weakest and most radical in Israeli history — a diplomatic and military catastrophe that will threaten Israeli democracy.
.

.
There is little point at this stage of the game in mentioning the depths of moral depravity and treachery into which Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked have descended. Now, as the two self-proclaimed “leaders” of the ideological right defect from the nationalist camp and form a leftist government supported by pro-Hamas Arab parties, the time has come to discuss the strategic and national consequences of their actions.

The place to begin the discussion is by noting that ministers that support the Biden administration’s Middle East policies will hold an absolute majority in the leftist government Bennett and Shaked are now intent on forming.

The Biden administration’s commitment to returning the United States to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran leads only in one direction. Biden’s Iran policy guarantees that Iran will achieve its goals of regional hegemony and membership in the nuclear club.

The 2015 deal facilitates Iran’s return to the global market and provides billions of dollars in cash payments to the regime in the form of sanctions relief and reparations. With these funds and lines of credit, the regime in Tehran will deepen its control over Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Iran will expand its war against Saudi Arabia while compelling the Gulf States and Jordan to bend to its will. The Khomeinist regime will then turn its sights on Egypt and work to oust the Sisi government and replace it with the Muslim Brotherhood. As for Iran’s program to develop a nuclear arsenal, the 2015 deal lifts all limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities by 2030 and legitimizes Iran’s nuclear weapons program. In other words, Iran will develop a nuclear arsenal and will declare itself a nuclear power sometime between now and 2030.

The administration’s claim that it will negotiate a “longer and stronger” nuclear deal with Iran after it returns the United States to the 2015 deal that paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear-armed regional hegemon is completely unfounded. Iran will have no interest in negotiating anything further, so it won’t.

The leftist government that Bennett and Shaked are about to form will not be able to oppose Biden’s policies because most of its cabinet ministers support those policies. And this spells the demise of the Abraham Accords. The rationale for those peace deals is Arab faith in Israel’s willingness to confront Iran even in defiance of the United States. Once that is gone, the Abraham Accords will be dead in the water.

The leftist government that Bennett and Shaked are now forming will guarantee that the Palestinian Authority will complete its seizure of Area C, endangering Israel’s strategic interests and imperiling its communities in Judea and Samaria. Most of the members of the government object to any steps to secure Israel’s rights and strategic interests in the areas. Not only are they themselves ideologically committed to undermining Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria. They will never dare to defy the Biden administration, which supports Palestinian land theft.

Under the leftist government, Hamas will rebuild its military capabilities in a matter of months. With the economic and political support from the Biden administration, the European Union and the United Nations, Hamas will be able to import all the building materials and other dual-use products it requires, without limitations. Any chance that Israel will object to this state of affairs will dissipate with the formation of the government. Here too, a majority of the cabinet members support the U.S. plan to “rebuild Gaza” for “humanitarian” reasons.

And if Hamas—as can be expected—renews its campaign against Israel, the government will not dare to fight back because it will be dependent on the support of the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned United Arab List to survive. The UAL will bring down the government if it even thinks about lifting a finger to protect Israel against Hamas.

Beyond the diplomatic and military catastrophe that the leftist government will foment, there’s also the issue of Israeli democracy. A large majority of the ministers in the leftist government now being formed support eternalizing the legal fraternity’s seizure of power over the Knesset and the government.

The radical justices of the Supreme Court and attorneys in the Attorney General’s office and state prosecution will exercise unchallenged authority over all aspects of public life. All chance of restoring the powers of Israel’s elected leaders and returning sovereignty to the people will disappear the minute this government is sworn into office.

It doesn’t matter what “Prime Minister” Bennett and his chorus of “advisers,” say in defense of their betrayal of their voters, their political camp, and their word of honor. The facts are what they are. Bennett, Shaked and their lackeys are poised to form the weakest and most radical government Israel has ever known. You don’t need to be a prophet to understand the consequences of their actions.


This article first appeared in Israel Hayom.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com