India’s Bnei Menashe community in crisis as ethnic violence burns synagogues and displaces hundreds

JORDYN HAIME / JTA

In 2005, a chief rabbi of Israel affirmed their identity as a “lost tribe” group with historic Jewish ties, but researchers have not found sufficient evidence to back the claim.
.

A scooterist rides past a damaged water tanker that was set afire during a protest by tribal groups in Churachandpur in the northeastern state of Manipur, India, May 4, 2023. /  (photo credit: REUTERS/STRINGER)

For the past several years, life was good for Lalam Hangshing as president of the Bnei Menashe Council, the governing body for Jewish communities in the Indian states of Manipur and Mizoram.

While living at his parents’ house, he and his wife enjoyed the clean air and beautiful scenery of Manipur, a state in northeast India home to close to 3 million people. Miles away, Hangshing rented out a newly-built four-story home to a film production company.

Everything changed on May 3, when rioting broke out between the ethnic majority Meiteis and the tribal minority Kukis, a violent conflagration that had been building up for years. Local groups say Meiteis began targeting Kuki institutions and razing homes to the ground, and Hangshing — also the general secretary of a Kuki-led political party — feared his house was next.

“When the problems started on the third of May, with military precision, the mobs went straight to [Kuki] houses,” Hangshing said. “They ransacked them and vandalized them and they burned each and every house in Imphal city within one and a half days.”

According to Shavei Israel, an NGO that helps “lost tribe” Jewish communities immigrate to Israel, over 1,000 members of the community, or 20% of their total, have been displaced. One community member was killed, and another was shot in the chest and is hospitalized. Two synagogues and mikvahs, or ritual baths, were burned down.

Bnei Menash from northern India make aliyah, December 15, 2020 (credit: ELIONORA SHILUV / ALIYAH AND ABSORPTION MINISTRY)

(Degel Menashe, an Israeli NGO that is dedicated to supporting the Bnei Menashe and has a longstanding feud with Shavei Israel, said one synagogue was burned.)

Hangshing is Kuki, as are the thousands of other Bnei Menashe Jews in Manipur. On May 4, Hangshing left his home and over a month later, has yet to return. 

He spoke with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency from Delhi, more than 1,000 miles from his home. His four-story house has been completely destroyed, but his parents’ home is somehow still standing. He worries about family possessions, such as religious books belonging to his father — who had helped found Manipur’s Jewish community — and a favorite set of golf clubs left behind, all in danger of being looted or destroyed any day now. 

More Bnei Menashe families

Another estimated 292 Bnei Menashe families have fled to Kuki-majority hill areas within Manipur or to the nearby state of Mizoram, according to Shavei Israel.

In Mizoram, over 100 Jews initially took refuge in the Shalom Tzion synagogue in Aizawl, in the houses of other Jewish families or at hotels, but most have moved to a paramilitary camp nearby. Community leaders say the refugees are not facing any immediate danger and have enough food and supplies thanks to the tens of thousands of dollars in aid rolling in from Shavei Israel and Degel Menashe.

“They basically just fled with their documents, and they have prayer books, their tefillin and ritual items, and the clothes on their back,” said Asaf Renthlei, a Mizoram Jewish community member and Degel Menashe volunteer. At relief camps, he said, community members have observed Shabbat every week since they fled.

“This is one of the gravest crises the Bnei Menashe in India have ever experienced,” said Michael Freund, who has been chairman of Shavei Israel since he founded the organization in 2002.

Over 100 Bnei Menashe have taken shelter in a synagogue in Mizoram. (Shavei Israel)

“A state gone rogue”

Violence broke out in Manipur state in early May when tribal groups launched a protest against the Meitei’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status, which is traditionally reserved for minority tribes such as the Kukis and ensures certain rights to education, government jobs and other privileges. The Kukis (which make up about 16% of the population and are majority Christian) say that the Meiteis (who make up 53% and are majority Hindu) already have outsized privilege and political representation.

The May 3 protest was only the spark that has ignited a conflict based on long-standing grievances against the Kuki minority, said Sushant Singh, a senior research fellow at India’s Centre for Policy Research.

“At the core of it, it is about Meiteis claiming that they are the original inhabitants of the state, Kukis are illegal immigrants, and… [the Meiteis] have been forced to occupy only 10% of the land,” Singh said. “And because of the special privileges that tribes have in India, they cannot go and occupy the land occupied by Kukis.”

As the conflict enters its second month, over 100 deaths have been recorded and an estimated 40,000 people have been displaced; some entire villages are destroyed and over 200 churches have been burned, as well as the two synagogues in the Imphal area. A statewide internet blackout has been in place since the beginning of May.

While both Kukis and Meiteis have participated in the violence, Kukis have “suffered the most,” and state police and security forces have joined Meitei groups in targeting Kukis, Singh said. Human Rights Watch has called on India to investigate police violence in Manipur, which local groups have disputed.

“It has essentially been a state gone rogue acting against a minority community,” Singh said.

Though the government has called for a ceasefire and established a peace committee, those efforts to quell the violence have been unsuccessful. The military has implemented security measures and evacuated Kukis further into the hills and Meiteis into the plains, but Singh said this has only reinforced geographical divides, instead of facilitating a solution that could allow the two groups to live alongside one another in the future.

Citing the government’s failure to protect them, Kukis have called for separation from the state of Manipur. As the conflict stretches into its second month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet to comment on the crisis in his country’s northeast.

“The army has been called in but they are very ineffective because it’s a civil war. They can’t take sides. They just stand around and when the firing gets too heavy, they stand aside so it’s left to us to fend for ourselves,” Hangshing said.

An appeal to Israel

The Bnei Menashe identify as descendants of a “lost tribe” group, tracing their origins to the Israelite tribe of Menasseh. In 2005, a chief rabbi of Israel affirmed their identity as a “lost tribe” group with historic Jewish ties, but researchers have not found sufficient evidence to back the claim. Bnei Menashe Jews began immigrating to Israel in the 1990s, and because of their “lost tribe” status, they all undergo formal Orthodox conversions upon arrival. Around 5,000 remain in the states of Manipur and Mizoram today, and about 5,000 have already immigrated to Israel.

Many have struggled to gain entry into Israel over the past two decades, and they are now asking the Jewish state to expedite the immigration process to help them escape the violence. But despite recent celebrations surrounding the opening of a new Indian-Jewish cultural center in central Israel, to which Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog sent recorded blessings, Jerusalem has yet to publicly respond to the situation.

Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, visited India last month on a planned trip aimed at strengthening ties between the two countries. He did not comment on the matter, and his visit was cut short due to a military operation in Israel.

“I think under [Benjamin] Netanyahu, particularly in this stint as prime minister, there are very few expectations. He is very close to Mr. Modi’s government, so I don’t think anybody expects anything from Netanyahu,” Singh said.

The Bnei Menashe’s “grey zone” religious status, in the words of Renthlei, makes their immigration to Israel more complicated for them than most. Before the Bnei Menashe can even apply to immigrate, they must face a panel of rabbis — who usually come all the way to India — for interviews.

“It’s not like Ukraine. The Ukrainians are Jewish without any doubt. But the Bnei Menashe, we are in some gray zone of not exactly not Jews, but not exactly Jews also,” Renthlei said. “It’s unlikely that the Bnei Menashe would just be able to make aliyah, even in this situation, unlike the Ukrainians.” Thousands of Ukrainian Jews have immigrated to Israel since Russia’s invasion began in February 2022.

The Jewish Agency for Israel, which helps facilitate immigration, and the UJA-Federation of New York have provided funding to Shavei Israel to help displaced persons, representatives from Shavei said. The Jewish Agency, the ministry of aliyah and integration, and the Israeli consulate in India did not respond to JTA’s requests for comment.

“We’re too small to matter, I suppose,” said Isaac Thangjom, director of Degel Menashe. Thangjom, who lives in Israel, has been in contact with officials in the ministry of aliyah and integration.

“They are very concerned, but they haven’t given me any explicit answer despite my proddings,” he said. “Their responses have been very tepid.”

‘A Grave Slur Against the IDF’: Colonel Richard Kemp Slams UN Condemnation of IDF Response to Rocket Attacks

Hugh Fitzgerald, FrontPage Magazine

Trails of smoke are seen as rockets are fired from Gaza towards Israel, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on May 13, 2023. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90

Former British Army officer says UN condemnation of IDF ensures ‘terrorists everywhere continue to use human shields and will cost many more lives.’

Colonel Richard Kemp, who led British troops in Afghanistan and has fought in another half-dozen campaigns, has long been a defender of the IDF, which he has described as “the most moral army in the world.” He looked at what Israel achieved in the first four days of Operation Shield and Arrow and come away with a heightened appreciation for the Israeli military.

More on his observations on the campaign can be found here: “‘A grave slur against IDF’: UN plays right into Islamic Jihad’s hands,” by Colonel Richard Kemp, Ynet News, May 11, 2023: “Operation Shield and Arrow has been carried out to date with breathtaking effectiveness. The shield of Iron Dome and David’s Sling have prevented major loss of life among the civilian population, although so far one man has been tragically killed and some have been injured, despite a barrage of 547 deadly rockets fired at Israel at the time of writing [as of Friday, May 12, that number had increased to 937].”

Israel managed to decapitate Palestinian Islamic Jihad, taking out by the fourth day of battle six of its senior commanders, including both the head, and the deputy head, of the PIJ’s rocket program. The IAF struck 197 targets in Gaza, including PIJ weapons storehouses, weapons fabrication plants, training centers, rocket launchers, and underground tunnels.

“The arrows of targeting intelligence, air strikes and missile attacks have decimated the Gaza terrorist leadership and destroyed many of their weapons. No other military is capable of defending its people with the ferocity and precision the IDF has been showing.”

How precise was Israel? It managed to locate the precise apartments where PIJ commanders had been hiding, and hit exactly those targets, sparing all but a handful of civilians – mostly, the wives and children of the commanders, though in the initial attack on May 9, three civilians living in an apartment adjacent to the one the IAF had targeted, also died. It managed to follow, from the skies, PIJ leaders as they moved from one apartment to another. In one case, the Israeli pilot held his fire while a PIJ leader was still with his family in an apartment, waiting until he had left them and gone, alone, to another hiding place, where he assumed he would never be found. And at that point, the Israeli pilot proved him wrong.

“Unfortunately, some of Israel’s arrows have also killed uninvolved civilians. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said yesterday that the civilian deaths in Gaza are ‘unacceptable’ and called on Israel to ‘abide by its obligations under international humanitarian law[…]’”

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is wrong. There is no obligation under “international humanitarian law” to avoid all civilian casualties. No army in the history of the world has ever achieved that. He was also wrong to pass over in silence the PIJ’s practice of using women and children — family members of the terrorist commanders — as human shields.

The IDF has a duty, rather, as do all other armies, to make efforts to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. This is exactly what the IDF did in Gaza. When they thought that they might be able to hit a commander when he moved away from his family, the Israeli pilots waited for the right moment. They called off airstrikes altogether when they detected the presence of too many civilians.

By Friday night, May 12, Israel had conducted airstrikes on 197 targets inside Gaza. And how many people were killed in all those strikes? The Ministry of Health in Gaza itself admits that ministry of health in Gaza published final data about the number of Palestinians killed and wounded in Operation Shield and Arrow; according to the data, 33 Palestinians were killed, 22 fighting men, six children, three women and two non-combatant elderly men. Three Palestinian children and one man were hit by a PIJ rocket that fell short in Gaza. Another Palestinian was working in Israel and was hit by a PIJ rocket.

In other words, of the total of 33 Palestinians killed, 22 were fighters with either the PIJ or the PFLP, and five were Palestinian civilians hit by PIJ rockets, leaving only six civilians who were killed by Israeli fire. And if it turns out ultimately to be two or three times that number, it would still astonish.

“Guterres’ comments — and their echoes in the media and among human rights groups — also play directly into the hands of terrorists whose prime operational objective, short of its destruction, is international vilification of Israel. The UN Human Rights Council’s condemnation of the IDF that will follow this conflict as night follows day, flowing from thinking such as the Secretary General’s, will help ensure that Islamic Jihad and terrorists everywhere continue to use human shields and will cost many more lives.”

Israel does not deserve to be condemned – though condemned it most certainly will be, up and down the squalid corridors of power at the UN, and in such malign media as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, the BBC, Agence France-Presse, and The Guardian – but should be praised for the precision of its targeting and its unbelievable ability to minimize civilian casualties, even as the PIJ fires nearly one thousand rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities and towns, and about that, Antonio Guterres has not a word to say.

“Knowing the IDF as I [Col. Kemp] do, I can be confident that they are closely adhering to — and going beyond — international laws of war in this conflict. But there is another question as well. Should they have been given political direction to conduct offensive operations in Gaza, knowing that innocent civilian lives would be lost? Some argue, following Guterres’s line that civilian deaths are unacceptable, that Israel’s shield is sufficient to blunt the rockets and protect its population without the accompanying arrows[…]”

Should Israel, Col. Kemp asks, have simply relied on its defenses – chiefly the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system but also, now, the medium-range David’s Sling – to protect its people from incoming rockets, and not gone on the offensive against PIJ? No, because the PIJ would have kept firing thousands of rockets into populated parts of Israel. PIJ has an insatiable appetite for violence; it has gone to war twice before with the IDF. Though it was badly defeated both times, its malevolence remains, and the Israelis have clearly concluded that it has to be dealt a blow so crushing that it will take years for the PIJ to recover.

After the PIJ fired more than 100 rockets into Israel on May 2, just after the death of the PIJ hunger-striker, Khader Adnan, Israel turned that to its advantage. It had been preparing for a long time to attack the PIJ, and by May 9 it was ready, letting loose with its devastating first strike that killed three senior commanders in a single attack.

The PIJ was so stunned that it took a full day for it to respond with a rocket barrage of its own, that began late on May 3. That delay may have been the result of fear on the part of the remaining PIJ leaders – they must have worried that after the three senior commanders had been eliminated, they could be next, or to confusion as to who was now in charge and had the authority to order rocket attacks. In any case, the PIJ rallied late on May 10, starting its barrage of rockets.

Though the IAF struck 197 targets, the PIJ continued to launch rockets and mortars into southern Israel. But they were either intercepted by the Iron Dome missiles (and in one case, by a David’s Sling mid-range missile, intercepting a rocket hurtling toward Tel Aviv) or fell harmlessly into open fields, save for a half-dozen that hit dwellings.

No country can be expected in wartime to be able to avoid all civilian deaths among its enemies. Guterres should know that it is always a question of proportion: has Israel caused thousands, or even hundreds, of civilian deaths? No, not one hundred, not fifty, nor forty, nor even thirty. Israel never wantonly bombs enemy territory, indifferent to where its bombs fall, which is quite a contrast to the practice of the PIJ. Does Israel, instead, engage in pinpoint targeting of those who direct one of the most ferocious of terror groups, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad? We all know the answer to that.

Grobowiec w Ogrodzie w Jerozolimie. Zdjęcie: Berthold Werner, źródło Wikimedia Commons

Polemika z izraelskimi migawkami

Andrzej Koraszewski

Artykul jest odpowiedzia Andrzeja Koraszewskiego na artykuł Macieja Kozłowskiego: “Izraelskie Migawki“, ktory ukazal sie na Blogu Reunion’68 9 czerwca 2023. [ Izraelskie Migawki ]

Demonstracja przeciw reformie sądownictwa w Jerozolimie 13 lutego 2023 r. (Źródło zdjęcia: Wikipedia)

Czasami jestem zdumiony, ale uświadamiając sobie mój wiek, przywołuję się do porządku i zaczynam się zastanawiać nad przyczynami zdumienia. Ambasador Maciej Kozłowski napisał interesujący tekst o swojej wizycie w Izraelu. Autor jest historykiem i dziennikarzem, Izrael zna lepiej niż wielu innych, gdyż był tam ambasadorem w latach 1999-2003, a i później zachował kontakty z tym krajem. Odwiedzając Izrael podczas kolejnych barbarzyńskich ataków palestyńskich terrorystów z Islamskiego Dżihadu, był troszkę niespokojny przy lądowaniu, ale później rozmawiał z izraelskimi przyjaciółmi głównie o izraelskich faszystach.

Jak się okazuje głównym przedmiotem tych rozmów z przyjaciółmi była proponowana przez nowy rząd reforma sądownictwa. Wracam do tej sprawy po raz kolejny, bo jednak budzi zdziwienie, jak łatwo w pogaduszkach z przyjaciółmi zapomnieć o zasadach pracy tak historyka, jak i dziennikarza (zobowiązujących do odłożenia przyjaźni na drugi plan, kiedy próbujemy dociec prawdy).

Nawiasem  mówiąc, partii religijnych grasujących na arenie politycznej nie kocham chyba bardziej niż ambasador Kozłowski (i to niezależnie, czy jest to AWS, PiS, czy Otzma Yehudit), co nie znaczy, że w zapale gotów jestem nazywać wszystkich wierzących polityków faszystami.

Ben Gvir to okropna postać, ale  nie jest faszystą, a przynajmniej trudno byłoby go podciągnąć pod tę kategorię bez lekceważenia definicji faszyzmu. Nie jest również prawdą, że to pierwszy w historii przypadek wejścia do izraelskiego rządu partii skrajnie prawicowej, bo po pierwsze w koalicji utworzonej przez Icchaka Rabina w 1992 roku była partia Szas, a ministrem spraw wewnętrznych został wówczas Aryeh Deri. Po drugie, nie musimy sięgać aż tak daleko, ponieważ w poprzedniej koalicji była partia polityczna będąca częścią Bractwa Muzułmańskiego (czyli z autentycznymi, a nie naciąganymi, korzeniami faszystowskimi, skrajnie homofobiczna i rasistowska). Detale są ważne, szczególnie, kiedy autorem jest poważny zawodowy historyk. Możemy się również dziwić, że tak poważny autor powtarza zarzut pod adresem premiera Netanjahu, iż zdecydował się na reformę sądownictwa w związku z oskarżeniami. Śledzący tak uważnie Izrael Autor zapewne wie, że po wielu latach procesu, nie zdołano udowodnić Netanjahu ani jednego zarzutu, że prokuratura wielokrotnie występowała z propozycjami ugody, które oskarżony odrzucał, że poprzedni naczelny „Jerusalem Post”, Yaakov Katz, apelował do prezydenta, żeby czym prędzej ułaskawić Netanjahu, iżby uniknąć kompromitacji Sądu Najwyższego. Być może ważniejszy jest fakt, że za reformą sądownictwa jest większość społeczeństwa izraelskiego, że prezydent jest zwolennikiem reformy sądownictwa (chociaż chciałby, żeby przeprowadzona była w drodze negocjacji, a nie jako zwyczajna ustawa parlamentarna).

Większość nie musi mieć racji, więc być może jeszcze ważniejszy jest fakt, że wśród polityków będących dziś przeciwnikami reformy większość wcześniej domagała się takiej reformy.  

Maciej Kozłowski pisze, „system ten – lepiej czy gorzej – funkcjonował od założenia państwa, zapewniając pełnię swobód obywatelskich i ład demokratyczny niezależnie od tego czy rządziła lewica, prawica, centrum, czy też różne, nieraz bardzo egzotyczne koalicje”. Po pierwsze ten system nie istniał „od założenia państwa”. Po drugie twierdzenie, że działał dobrze, nie jest zgodne z prawdą. Przeczy temu zarówno historia „rewolucji konstytucyjnej” Aharona Baraka z 1993 roku, jak i prób cofnięcia tej rewolucji na przestrzeni dziesięcioleci. Obawiam się, że Autor nadmiernie zaufał swoim izraelskim przyjaciołom  i (podobnie jak wielu innych), nie zadał sobie trudu sprawdzania faktów. Autor podpiera się opinią byłego generała i byłego (rozgoryczonego)  polityka Likudu, chociaż może rozsądniej byłoby przejrzeć wcześniejsze spory między prawnikami.

Rewolucję Aharona Baraka krytykowali nie tylko prawnicy z prawicy, ale niesłychanie ostro krytykowała ją nieżyjąca już, związaną z partią Meretz, profesor Ruth Gavison, (której autorytet odpowiadał w Izraelu autorytetowi naszej Ewy Łętowskiej). Wśród krytyków tej „rewolucji” był Moshe Landau, były prezes Sądu Najwyższego Izraela, profesor Daniel Friedman były dziekan Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu w Tel Awiwie; profesor Joav Dotan, były dziekan Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu Hebrajskiego w Jerozolimie.

Ta reforma Baraka krytykowana była również poza granicami Izraela. Były prokurator generalny USA, Robert Bork, nazwał tę reformę „światowym rekordem sędziowskiej pychy”.  Jeden z najsławniejszych amerykańskich prawników ubiegłego wieku, profesor Richard Posner, w 2007 roku w artykule od tytułem Oświecony despota  pisał:

Aharon Barak, długoletni sędzia (ostatecznie główny sędzia) Sądu Najwyższego Izraela, który niedawno osiągnął wiek emerytalny, jest płodnym pisarzem, a to jest jego najnowsza książka. Jest to ważny dokument, nie tyle ze względu na swoje wewnętrzne zalety, ile na to, że można go uznać za Dowód A, dlaczego amerykańscy sędziowie powinni być bardzo ostrożni w cytowaniu zagranicznych orzeczeń sądowych. Barak jest światowej sławy sędzią, który zdominował swój sąd tak całkowicie, jak John Marshall zdominował nasz Sąd Najwyższy. Gdyby istniała Nagroda Nobla w dziedzinie prawa, Barak prawdopodobnie byłby jej pierwszym odbiorcą. Ale chociaż zna on amerykański system prawny i uważa, że w pewnym sensie ma wspólny język z liberalnymi amerykańskimi sędziami, w rzeczywistości zamieszkuje zupełnie inny – i dla Amerykanina dziwnie inny – prawniczy wszechświat.

Przeprowadzona przez Posnera krytyka systemu sądowego stworzonego przez Baraka jest druzgocząca. To system stawiający demokrację na głowie. Maciej Kozłowski daje ciekawy przykład jak to działa. Minister Spraw Wewnętrznych odwołuje komendanta policji w jakimś mieście, a prokurator generalny unieważnia jego decyzję. Przenieśmy to na grunt polski. Mariusz Kamiński odwołuje komendanta policji w Krakowie, a Ziobro mówi, ta decyzja jest nieważna. Idźmy dalej, zmienia się władza, ale po wyborach Ziobrę może zmienić wyłącznie zespół sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (wybranych przez Zjednoczoną Prawicę).

Posner o takiej roli sądów pisze:

Barak opiera swoją koncepcję władzy sądowniczej na abstrakcyjnych zasadach, które w jego ustach są grą słów. Wiodącą abstrakcją jest „demokracja”. Demokracja polityczna we współczesnym znaczeniu oznacza system rządów, w którym politycy kandydują w wyborach w stosunkowo krótkich odstępach czasu, a zatem są odpowiedzialni przed obywatelami. Sądownictwo, które ma swobodę dowolnego uchylania decyzji tych wybranych polityków, ogranicza demokrację. Dla Baraka demokracja ma jednak „konkretny” składnik, a mianowicie zestaw praw („prawa człowieka” nieograniczające się do praw politycznych, takich jak prawo do krytykowania urzędników publicznych, które wspiera demokrację), egzekwowanych przez sądownictwo, które podcina skrzydła wybranych polityków. To nie jest uzasadnienie dla hiperaktywnego sądownictwa, to jest jego definicja.

Gdyby Maciej Kozłowski, poświęcił czas na zbadanie historii sporu o rolę sądownictwa w Izraelu, być może, umiałby wyprowadzić swoich izraelskich przyjaciół  z absurdalnego błędu porównania izraelskiej próby przywrócenia równowagi między różnymi pionami władzy, a wysiłkami polskich władz, żeby tę równowagę skutecznie zniszczyć. Obawiam się, że ambasador Kozłowski dał się nabrać na to „Yariv Levin kan ze lo Polin”.     

Jest gorzej. Nie trzeba być Ewą Łętowską, żeby zauważyć, że dyktatura urzędników zwanych radcami prawnymi, to nie jest prawniczy nadzór przez niezależne sądy, ale nadzór komisarzy politycznych, od których woluntarystycznych decyzji nie ma odwołania.

Prezydent Herzog ma dobre powody, żeby lać oliwę na wzburzone fale i dążyć do tego, żeby ta reforma izraelskiego sądownictwa jednak doszła do skutku.     

Izraelski nacjonalizm zasadniczo różni się od rosyjskiego nacjonalizmu, węgierskiego, czy polskiego. Jest to nacjonalizm obronny, (to nie izraelska obrona przeciwlotnicza jest „zabójczo skuteczna”, to antyizraelska propaganda jest ZABÓJCZO skuteczną bronią, wprowadzającą w błąd wielu uczciwych ludzi, w tym wielu ludzi w samym Izraelu).  

Obecna koalicja może się nie podobać. Jak w każdym demokratycznym kraju przegrani nie są zadowoleni. Patrząc z boku warto próbować rozróżniać emocje i fakty. Izrael walczy o przetrwanie we wrogim świecie. Społeczeństwo izraelskie po raz kolejny powiedziało w wyborach, że taktyka nieustannych ustępstw wzmacnia terroryzm, nie łagodzi nienawiści i kłamstw świata na temat Izraela, przybliża prawdopodobieństwo (być może atomowej) wojny z tymi, którzy dążą do zniszczenia Izraela.

Ze zdumieniem przeczytałem  w artykule Macieja Kozłowskiego zdanie:  „Wówczas w tym Izraelu, który znam – czyli Izraelu wykształconym, świeckim, w większości o korzeniach aszkenazyjskich panowała atmosfera przygnębienia granicząca wręcz z rozpaczą”.  

Przepraszam, Panie Ambasadorze, ale mam wrażenie, że w tym zdaniu ukrywają się jakieś uprzedzenia. Profesor Ruth Gavison nie byłaby dziś przyjaciółką ani Ben Gvira, ani Smotricza, była jedną z pierwszych zaniepokojonych niszczeniem demokracji przez Sąd Najwyższy. W całej serii artykułów pokazywała dlaczego zasada kontradyktoryjności i rzetelności procesów regulujących procedury prawne nie może być naruszana, a sąd musi wysłuchać obydwu stron, zaś uniemożliwianie rządowi obrony swojej sprawy stanowi fundamentalne zagrożenie demokratycznego systemu. Nie wiem jednak, czy warto wracać do jej artykułów, podobno miała marokańskie korzenie.

P.S. Autor rządowego projektu reformy sądownictwa, Yariv Levin, to nie jest taki prawnik jak Ziobro czy Andrzej Duda. Ma solidny dorobek zawodowy, był wieloletnim prezesem Izby Adwokackiej, więc pewnie na Pana miejscu nie cieszyłbym się z tych porównań.

Andrzej Koraszewski – Publicysta i pisarz ekonomiczno-społeczny.  Ur. 26 marca 1940 w Szymbarku, były dziennikarz BBC, wiceszef polskiej sekcji BBC, i publicysta paryskiej „Kultury”.

Mahmoud Abbas’ Dissertation

IZABELLA TABAROVSKY

The Palestinian leader’s scholarly abstract sheds light on the crude deformations of Soviet Zionology and how they are reflected in today’s universities.
.

The ‘scholarly’ fakes produced by Soviet ‘scientific anti-Zionism’ are still with usORIGINAL IMAGE: GETTY IMAGES

On Feb. 1, 1972, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued a directive “On further measures to fight anti-Soviet and anti-communist activities of international Zionism.” The social sciences section of the Soviet Academy of Sciences soon established a permanent commission for the coordination of scientific criticism of Zionism, to be housed at the academy’s prestigious Institute of Oriental Studies. Over the next 15 years, the IOS would serve as an important partner in the state’s fight against the imaginary global Zionist conspiracy that Soviet security services believed was sabotaging the USSR in the international arena and at home. In 1982, the IOS would grant the doctoral status to one Mahmoud Abbas, upon the defense of his thesis The Relationship Between Zionists and Nazis, 1933-1945.

ZOA Calls on Biden Administration to Rescind ‘Horrific and Frightening’ Appointments to Holocaust Museum Board

United with Israel staff

‘The Holocaust Memorial Museum – which by law is mandated to carry out ‘support for the Jewish homeland’ – should never have board members of anti-Israel organizations on the Museum’s governing board.’

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and its National President, Morton Klein, called on the Biden administration to rescind the “appointment to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Council (the governing board of trustees of the museum) of two board members of hostile-to-Israel non-governmental organizations.”

In a statement released Tuesday, Klein, also speaking on behalf of the ZOA, called the appointments of Kimberly Emerson and Alan Solomont to the council “horrific and frightening.”

He noted that “Congress established the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to memorialize Holocaust victims and ‘carry out the recommendations of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust in its report to the President of September 27, 1979.’” The report, in turn, had called for a focus of the museum to be “support for the Jewish homeland.”

“Thus, the Holocaust Memorial Museum – which by law is mandated to carry out ‘support for the Jewish homeland’ – should never have board members of anti-Israel organizations on the Museum’s governing board,” Klein said.

Emerson is on the board of Human Rights Watch (HRW), which “is infamous for falsely accusing Israel of ‘apartheid,’ ‘crimes against humanity,’ ‘persecuting’ and ‘systematic oppression’ and ‘inhumane acts’ against Palestinians,” according to Klein

“HRW calls for dismantling Jewish communities where 800,000 Jews live in the lawful Jewish homeland in Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria; forcibly removing these Jews to the other side of the artificial 1948 ceasefire line; free movement of Arabs to and from Gaza; dismantling much of the security fence that protects Israelis from terror attacks; and a one-sided ‘return’ of Palestinian Arabs to overrun Israel,” he added.

Solomont, on the other hand, was on the board of “vicious hostile-to-Israel groups” New Israel Fund (NIF)  and Israel Policy Forum (IPF).

According to Klein, NIF “funds numerous anti-Israel groups that promote antisemitic BDS, seek to bring Israeli soldiers before international tribunals, funded anti-Israeli government protests, and more.”

IPF, he said, ” is so radical that it was the only group to testify against moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.”

“Solomont is currently the National Board Chair of the notorious anti-Israel group J Street, which promotes anti-Israel UN resolutions; funds anti-Israel political candidates and lobbies for U.S. funding for the Palestinians – which enables the Palestinian Authority’s ‘pay to slay’ payments to Arab terrorists to murder Jews, among many other horrors,” Klein added.