Archive | February 2025

Jak Hamas planuje udaremnić plan Trumpa dotyczący Gazy

Feb13

Hamas już mówi, że jeśli administracja Trumpa odważy się wdrożyć plan relokacji i odbudowy, organizacja terrorystyczna rozpęta falę terroryzmu przeciwko Amerykanom i akceptującym ten plan Palestyńczykom. Aby plan Trumpa się powiódł, USA muszą nalegać na odsunięcie Hamasu od władzy i całkowite rozbrojenie wszystkich grup terrorystycznych w Strefie Gazy. Na zdjęciu: terroryści z Hamasu.

Jak Hamas planuje udaremnić plan Trumpa dotyczący Gazy


Khaled Abu Toameh Tłumaczenie: Andrzej Koraszewski

Wspierana przez Iran palestyńska organizacja terrorystyczna Hamas na plan prezydenta USA Donalda Trumpa dotyczący przesiedlenia Palestyńczyków ze Strefy Gazy odpowiedziała groźbą użycia przemocy wobec Amerykanów.

W wydanym oświadczeniu Hamas stwierdził, że Palestyńczycy „przeciwstawią się wobec tych planów oporem i konieczną siłą”.

To zagrożenie jest skierowane nie tylko przeciwko Stanom Zjednoczonym, ale także przeciwko Palestyńczykom ze Strefy Gazy, z których wielu chętnie przeprowadziłoby się w inne miejsce, gdzie mogliby żyć w bezpieczeństwie i pokoju. Hamas zasadniczo mówi, że jeśli administracja Trumpa odważy się wdrożyć plan relokacji i odbudowy, organizacja terrorystyczna rozpęta falę terroru przeciwko Amerykanom i Palestyńczykom, którzy się na to zgodzą.

Administracja Trumpa nie powinna lekceważyć takich gróźb ze strony Hamasu, który 15 miesięcy temu rozpoczął wojnę w Strefie Gazy, kiedy jego członkowie wraz z tysiącami „zwykłych” Palestyńczyków zaatakowali Izrael, zamordowali ponad 1200 osób i zranili tysiące innych. Kolejnych 250 Izraelczyków, w tym dzieci, kobiety i osoby starsze, zostało porwanych do Strefy Gazy, gdzie 79 z nich nadal jest przetrzymywanych w niewoli.

Hamas już ponosi pełną odpowiedzialność za śmierć tysięcy Palestyńczyków i zniszczenie Strefy Gazy.

Od czasu ogłoszenia w połowie stycznia, wynegocjowanego za pośrednictwem USA, porozumienia o zawieszeniu broni i uwalnianiu zakładników, setki tysięcy Palestyńczyków odkryło, że podczas wojny ich domy zostały zniszczone. Duże obszary Strefy Gazy, zwłaszcza północna część, nie nadają się do zamieszkania z powodu braku wody, prądu,  ośrodków  medycznych oraz min i niewybuchów.

„W północnej części Strefy Gazy nie ma życia” – powiedział jeden z mieszkańców Gazy.

„Dokumentacja w mediach społecznościowych odzwierciedla tylko 20% zniszczeń. Sytuacja jest nie do opisania. Ludzie nie rozumieją sytuacji. Mózg staje. Ludzie zaczęli gadać sami do siebie”.

Bassem Eid palestyński działacz na rzecz praw człowiek  podkreśla, że wielu Palestyńczyków żyjących pod władzą Hamasu chciało opuścić Strefę Gaz już na długo przed wybuchem wojny między Izraelem a Hamasem 7 października 2023 r.

„Kiedy pytałem przed wojną moich palestyńskich braci i siostry w Gazie, jakie były ich najważniejsze priorytety, ich odpowiedzi były jasne: praca, aby utrzymać rodziny, dostęp do wysokiej jakości edukacji i niezawodnej opieki zdrowotnej. Teraz wielu z nich zostało bez pracy, bez dachu nad głową i zdesperowanych, bez nadziei na przyszłość, która wydaje się niemożliwa. Z Gazą w ruinie i Hamasem trzymającym ludzi w uścisku, sytuacja jest tragiczna.

Propozycja prezydenta Trumpa, aby pozwolić Palestyńczykom opuścić Gazę, jest kołem ratunkowym. Daje możliwość ucieczki spod duszącej kontroli Hamasu i znalezienia miejsca, w którym mogą odbudować swoje życie — gdzie ich dzieci będą miały dostęp do edukacji, gdzie będą mogli pracować z godnością, a ich rodziny będą bezpieczne i zdrowe. To nie tylko szansa na relokację, ale prawdziwa szansa na wyzwolenie się od terroru, nadzieja na przyszłość, na jaką zasługują.

Nie chodzi o porzucenie Gazy; chodzi o umożliwienie jej mieszkańcom ucieczki od ucisku. Nadzieją jest, że pewnego dnia będą mogli powrócić do Gazy wolnej od Hamasu, gdzie pokój i dobrobyt mogą naprawdę zapuścić korzenie”.

Hamas nie chce żadnej interwencji USA w konflikcie izraelsko-palestyńskim. Grupa terrorystyczna, wraz z irańskimi terrorystami, obawia się, że utrudni to ich dżihad (świętą wojnę) przeciwko Izraelowi. Hamas nie chce, aby Palestyńczycy opuścili Strefę Gazy: chce nadal używać ich jako żywe tarcze w walce z Izraelem.

Przywódcy Hamasu na przestrzeni lat udowodnili t, że tak naprawdę nie obchodzą ich dwa miliony Palestyńczyków w Strefie Gazy. Większość politycznych liderów grupy kilka lat temu opuściła Strefę Gazy wraz ze swoimi rodzinami. Od tego czasu żyją wygodnie w Katarze, Turcji, Libanie i innych krajach. „New York Post” donosił  7 listopada 2023 r.:

„Podczas gdy ich naród żyje w ubóstwie i jest wykorzystywany jako żywe tarcze, przywódcy Hamasu są miliarderami.

Trzech najważniejszych przywódców tej grupy terrorystycznej jest wartych oszałamiającą sumę 11 miliardów dolarów i cieszą się życiem w luksusie jako goście emira Kataru”.

Hamas chce, aby USA i inne kraje zainwestowały miliardy dolarów w odbudowę Strefy Gazy. Ta terrorystyczna  grupa nie jest jednak gotowa oddać kontroli nad nadmorską enklawą. Planuje utrzymanie władzy nad Strefą Gazy, aby móc dalej prowadzić dżihad przeciwko Izraelowi.

Jak krótko po masakrze 7 października ślubował wysoki rangą funkcjonariusz Hamasu Ghazi Hamad:

„Musimy dać Izraelowi nauczkę i będziemy to robić raz po raz. Potop Al-Aksa [nazwa, którą Hamas nadał atakowi na Izrael] to dopiero pierwszy raz, a będzie drugi, trzeci, czwarty, ponieważ jesteśmy zdecydowani, zdeterminowani i mamy możliwości walki”.

Jeśli administracja Trumpa będzie kontynuować swój plan dotyczący Gazy, ten sam Hamas, który zaatakował Izrael 7 października 2023 r., jest również w stanie atakować interesy i personel USA na Bliskim Wschodzie i poza nim. Do Hamasu prawdopodobnie dołączą inni pełnomocnicy Iranu, w tym libański Hezbollah i Huti w Jemenie.

Aby plan Trumpa się powiódł, USA muszą nalegać na odsunięcie Hamasu od władzy i całkowite rozbrojenie wszystkich grup terrorystycznych w Strefie Gazy.

Odbudowa Strefy Gazy i uczynienie jej ponownie nadającym się do zamieszkania miejscem zajmie wiele lat. Do tego czasu administracja Trumpa już nie będzie istnieć. Największym zagrożeniem  jest to, że przyszła administracja USA nie zdoła zablokować powrotu terrorystów do odbudowanej Strefy Gazy.

Jeśli tak się stanie, to będzie  tylko kwestią czasu , zanim Strefa Gazy stanie się ponownie wielką bazą dżihadystów nie tylko z Hamasu, ale i innych islamistycznych grup terrorystycznych, dla których Izrael i USA są celem numer jeden.

Khaled Abu Toameh – urodzony w 1963 r. w Tulkarem na Zachodnim Brzegu, arabski dziennikarz, któremu wielokrotnie grożono śmiercią. Publikował między innymi w “The Jerusalem Post”, “Wall Street Journal”, “Sunday Times”, “U.S. News”, “World Report”, “World Tribune”, “Daily Express” i palestyńskim dzienniku “Al-Fajr”. Od 1989 roku jest współpracownikiem i konsultantem NBC News.

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

Canceled … in Finland

Feb13
Canceled … in Finland


Izabella Tabarovsky

Students protest at Finland’s Helsinki University, May 6, 2024 / Alessandro Rampazzo/Anadolu via Getty Images

Turns out that Finnish academics are just as grossly lazy, airheaded, pompous, and self-serving—and just as eager to censor Jews—as their American counterparts

In recent days, two Finnish universities canceled my scheduled appearances on their campuses, turning me briefly into a minor celebrity in the country. Åbo Akademi University, in Turku, barred me from delivering my keynote address at an international conference on antisemitism set to take place on its campus. The University of Helsinki killed what was supposed to be a public talk. The title of both lectures: “From the Cold War to University Campuses Today: The USSR, the Third World, and Contemporary Antizionist Discourse.” The two schools caved to a smear campaign orchestrated by a “pro-Palestinian” Instagram account that weaponized my pro-Israel social media posts for the purpose.

In the U.S., the censorship of “wrong-thinking” speakers, including Jews who hold Zionist beliefs, has become so commonplace that it’s practically a nonevent. But this was Finland’s first major controversy of this kind, and my photo got splashed across the local press. It was also a first for me, forcing me to confront head-on the same cowardice, hypocrisy, and stupidity that the American academy has displayed for years—especially in the wake of Oct. 7.

That the incident took place in Finland was particularly ironic for me, given the topic of my lecture and my background as an ex-Soviet Jew. For former Soviet citizens, Finland is indelibly linked to the history of the Bolshevik revolution. Not only did Lenin spend extended periods of time there, but also he and Stalin first met at a 1905 Bolshevik conference in the Finnish city of Tampere.

During the Cold War, Finland—forced to maneuver to retain its independence in the shadow of the neighboring USSR (see: Finlandization)—adopted a servile stance toward the communist superpower. Criticism of the USSR was taboo and self-censorship was rife—all of which Finnish media helped to enforce. Soviet influence extended to the country’s intellectual, political, and cultural elites. In the 1970s, a scandal broke out when one of Finland’s municipalities successfully inserted materials from the Finnish-Soviet Friendship Society—a branch of the USSR’s global “friendship societies” influence network—as well as from Soviet textbooks into the school curriculum for grades 1-9, teaching Finnish children that there was no pollution in the USSR and that socialist central planning was superior to capitalism.

The cancellation of my lectures by the two Finnish universities echoed in a weird way some of their country’s Cold War history. Finland has yet to fully come to terms with that past.

When Moscow launched its rabid anti-Israel propaganda campaign in 1967 and started building its “Anti-Zionist International,” Finnish intellectuals were drawn in as well. In 1975, Finnish writer Matti Larni, whose book castigating the U.S. made him popular in the USSR, published a piece about Israel in the Literary Newspaper—the Soviet Union’s most influential cultural publication. Larni’s article echoed key Soviet talking points, branding Israel a Jewish supremacist, racist state and depicting Soviet Jewish immigrants in Israel as miserable, regretful traitors longing to return to their Soviet motherland. In 1980, the article was republished in Zionism: Truth and Fiction, a collection edited by Yevgeny Yevseyev—one of the USSR’s most viciously antisemitic ideologues with close ties to the KGB, who played a pivotal role in shaping the key tropes of Soviet “anti-Zionist” ideology.

Another Finnish name appears in the Soviet 1984 propaganda pamphlet Criminal Alliance of Zionism and Nazism. The pamphlet recounts, in English, a press conference staged by the “Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public”—a notorious KGB front designed to vilify Israel and Zionism to foreign audiences under the guise of representing Soviet Jews. The entire event was dedicated to spreading the toxic equation of Zionism with Nazism—a cornerstone of Soviet anti-Israel propaganda—to international audiences. Known as Holocaust inversion, this false equivalence is widely viewed by scholars of antisemitism as a potent tool of incitement against Jews, used by both the far right and the far left. As Deborah Lipstadt has noted, the trope contains a grain of Holocaust denial, exaggerating “by a factor of zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done,” while simultaneously diminishing, by the same factor, the acts of the Germans. The USSR and its Western enablers—including, it seems, the Finnish ones—played a significant role in embedding this inversion among the global left.

The cancellation of my lectures by the two Finnish universities, then, echoed in a weird way some of their country’s Cold War history. One of my Finnish contacts may have been right when she told me that Finland has yet to fully come to terms with that past.

It replayed some long-forgotten past experiences for me as well. For ex-Soviet Jews, the anti-Israel campaigns that have permeated university campuses in recent years serve as a stark reminder of what we endured under the USSR. Maxim Shrayer, a refusenik and professor at Boston College, recalls how in the 1970s and ’80s, all “expressions of Jewish pride and Jewish spiritual and intellectual self-awareness” were dubbed “‘Zionist’ and targeted for public ostracism and vilification.” Under the pretense of combatting Zionism, “brainwashed Soviet young people acted on their antisemitic urges. A non-Jewish teenager at my Soviet school tried to beat up a Jewish kid because ‘the Zionists have taken over the Golan Heights.’”

For us, Soviet Jews, the state’s obsession with Zionism led to relentless discrimination, barring us from certain universities, careers, and professions. This lived experience taught us that while “anti-Zionism” doesn’t have to be antisemitic in theory, it inevitably produces antisemitic outcomes in real life. In the wake of Oct. 7, Jews around the world are learning what we knew decades ago: Whether school bullies call us “kikes” or “Zios,” the outcome is the same.

The smear campaign against me began on Instagram on Wednesday, Jan. 22—one week before my scheduled appearance at a conference titled “Dialogue on Antisemitism: A Path Towards Understanding and Action.” Organized by the Antisemitism Undermining Democracy Project at the Polin Institute of Åbo Akademi University, the conference was meant to launch a conversation that, the organizers felt, had long been overdue in Finland. It was the first major international conference dedicated to contemporary antisemitism in the country. Leading the effort was Mercédesz Czimbalmos, a scholar with a an extensive body of research on antisemitism and Jewish life in Finland.

The campaign branded me a “genocide denier” who legitimizes a “settler-colonial apartheid state” and is an all-around dangerous extremist guilty of the ultimate transgression—equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It also seized on a mistake by a conference team member, who had erroneously added “Ph.D.” next to my name on the conference site. The error was quickly fixed, but not before my detractors took notice and claimed I misrepresented my academic credentials. Angry calls and emails to university administrations followed. By Friday it was over.

Czimbalmos and her team fought hard, arguing on the merits: My lecture was not going to be about the Israel-Gaza conflict; diversity of opinions was important for stimulating dialogue; my expertise was widely known and acknowledged; the Ph.D. blunder wasn’t my fault. They were ultimately overruled. Still, they chose a gesture of defiance: Rather than officially cancel my keynote or replace me with another speaker, they asked me for an article to read aloud to the participants in place of my speech. I couldn’t think of a better piece for the occasion than “What My Soviet Life Taught Me About Censorship,” published in Quillette.

As a student of anti-Zionist propaganda, who has closely watched the rise of anti-Israel demonization on American campuses and its impact on Jewish students and faculty, I understood exactly what had happened. Still, I thought the decision-makers owed me an explanation. I sent an identical email to Åbo Akademi, addressing Rector Mikael Lindfelt and Dean Peter Nynäs of the Faculty of Arts, Psychology, and Theology, and to the University of Helsinki, addressing Rector Sari Lindblom and Dean Pirjo Hiidenmaa of the Faculty of Humanities. I explained my scholarly credentials and added that I was bringing my lived experience to the lectures. I also asked them, slightly tongue in cheek, for the reason behind the cancellation of my talks.

The correspondence that followed astonished me. It turned out that the learned men charged with deciding whether my talk could proceed hadn’t even bothered to check the facts, censoring me on the basis of hearsay and slander. When I came around asking questions, they stammered and came up with dubious excuses. They were fearful, and it showed.

Writing to me on behalf of the University of Helsinki was Hannu Juusola, a professor of Middle Eastern studies and the head of the university’s Department of Cultures. In a rambling response, Juusola blamed procedural faults but also stressed he knew nothing about my academic background—only that I didn’t have a Ph.D. More to the point, he’d been told that I had “strong political opinions”—a fact he clearly found objectionable. He also hoped I understood that the topic of my research was “currently very politicized.”

To me, this was hogwash. Information about my scholarly background had been sent to the university months before, and I had personally sent another bio in early December, further detailing my credentials. Universities regularly invite speakers with strong political opinions and no Ph.D.s, and the University of Helsinki is no exception. When Juusola later referred to my lecture as “controversial,” it became an open-and-shut case of political censorship by a faculty member whose own strong anti-Israel political opinions are well known.

In contrast to Juusola’s verbose and self-contradictory explanations, Nynäs at Åbo Akademi opted for evasion as a strategy. “The decision was based on an overall assessment where no single argument in itself was decisive for this,” he wrote. “Rather, as Dean, I felt that there were several difficult questions and that there was obvious uncertainty and lack of clarity around these. Furthermore, these posed risks to both individuals and other stakeholders that could not be clearly assessed or adequately addressed prior to the event.”

Obviously defensive, he added: “In light of this, I felt that the best solution for all was to proceed in this way so that the seminar could be held. We see great value in the seminar and in contributing to the understanding of anti-Semitism and to dialogue about it, a topic that should be more widely known and understood.” I couldn’t resist pointing out that my keynote, of course, would have made a significant contribution to the “understanding of antisemitism” and to “dialogue about it” among conference participants. Censoring a recognized expert in the field—who also brought firsthand experience of antisemitism to the conversation—was hardly the path to reach the stated goal.

In the end, the conference at Åbo Akademi went on without a hitch. No one showed up to protest or disrupt it. Was it only because my talk had been canceled? I’m certain the outcome would have been the same had it gone ahead. And even if some protesters had shown up—so what? After the first day of the event, a Finnish academic wrote a venomous thread on X, celebrating my cancellation and attacking two other speakers at the conference. It got six likes. The media storm sparked by the censorship was undoubtedly far bigger than anything my actual presentation could have generated.

Now that the news cycle is moving on, the two universities may be tempted to breathe a sigh of relief, but that would be a mistake. Their cowardice and failure to uphold their own values (truth, freedom, inclusivity, yada, yada, yada) should prompt them to take some time to contemplate their raison d’être.

There were additional bad optics here. In this story, men in authority, who were not subject-matter experts, overruled their female subordinates—women who had organized the conference, were experts in their field and knew exactly who they were inviting and why. These men also thought it appropriate to censor a female speaker whose expertise had earned her an international reputation. The fact that three out of the four women affected were Jewish, and all were of Eastern European background, only worsened the optics.

In the end, the Finnish public missed out on a lecture I’ve presented at countless universities and academic centers around the world. But the leadership of the two universities shouldn’t see this as a barrier to their own learning. My articles and talks are available online and are an excellent place for the esteemed professors, deans, and rectors to expand their knowledge about antisemitism. Not the type that denies the Holocaust but the one that makes a show of commemorating dead Jews while refusing to hear those who are still alive.

Izabella Tabarovsky is a scholar of Soviet anti-Zionism and contemporary left antisemitism. She is a Senior Fellow with the Z3 Institute for Jewish Priorities and a Research Fellow with the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and ISGAP. Follow her on Twitter @IzaTabaro.

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

Hamas confirms hostage release for Saturday—report

Feb13
Hamas confirms hostage release for Saturday—report

update desk

This is reportedly contingent on Israel supplying caravans, tents, fuel, heavy equipment, medicines and hospital renovation materials to Gaza.

Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades parade Israeli captive Eli Sharabi in Deir al-Balah, the Gaza Strip, before handing him over to the International Red Cross, Feb 8, 2025. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90.

The Hamas terrorist organization has confirmed to Egyptian officials its commitment to continue with the hostage deal with Israel, including a sixth release of three captives set for Saturday, according to Saudi outlet Asharq News.

This is reportedly contingent on Israel supplying caravans, tents, fuel, heavy equipment, medicines and hospital renovation materials to Gaza.

Egyptian sources previously informed Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that Hamas agreed with Egyptian mediators to continue the hostage release arrangement in exchange for these supplies, which were expected to enter Gaza on Thursday.

However, Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said on Al Jazeera that while Hamas is committed to the agreed schedule, not all Israeli hostages would be released on Saturday.

Israel has reportedly informed Hamas through Egyptian and Qatari mediators that the hostage release-ceasefire deal will continue if the terrorist group frees three more hostages on Saturday.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned of severe consequences if the hostages are not freed by Saturday, stating that “the gates of hell will open, just as [U.S. President Donald Trump] promised.”

During a visit to the IDF Operations Directorate’s command center, Katz declared that if Hamas halts the hostage release, “there is no agreement, and there is a war.”

He added that renewed fighting in Gaza would be “more intense than before the ceasefire” and would not end until Hamas is defeated and all hostages are freed, paving the way for the implementation of Trump’s vision for Gaza.

Unless Hamas returns Israeli hostages by noon on Saturday, the ceasefire will expire and the IDF will resume fighting until total victory over Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday.

Netanyahu’s statement announcing the ultimatum followed remarks by Trump on Monday, who also named Saturday, Feb. 15, at noon as the time after which “all hell will break loose” unless Hamas frees all hostages.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military is preparing to possibly resume fighting in Gaza following Hamas’s announcement that it would delay releasing hostages.

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

Przesiedlenie Palestyńczyków zakończyłoby wymianę z 1948 r.

Feb12

Przesiedleni Palestyńczycy rozbijają namioty przy granicy Egiptu z miastem Rafah w południowej części Strefy Gazy, 8 marca 2024 r. Zdjęcie: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90.

Przesiedlenie Palestyńczyków zakończyłoby wymianę z 1948

Lyn Julius
Tłumaczenie: Andrzej Koraszewski

Propozycja prezydenta Donalda Trumpa, aby 1,5 miliona Palestyńczyków ze Strefy Gazy przenieść do Egiptu i Jordanii, spotkała się z całkowitym odrzuceniem ze strony tych krajów, a także z krzykami oburzenia i oskarżeniami o „czystki etniczne”.

Problem uchodźców należy rozpatrywać w kontekście historycznym. Trump skupił uwagę na mieszkańcach Gazy, skutecznie sugerując zakończenie wymiany populacji uchodźców, która rozpoczęła się w 1948 r. pierwszą wojną arabsko-izraelską. Arabscy uchodźcy uciekli z Izraela do Gazy oraz na tereny Judei i Samarii, podczas gdy tysiące innych wyjechało do Libanu i Syrii.

Często zapomina się, że żydowscy uchodźcy — prześladowani w krajach arabskich, gdzie byli osiedleni przez tysiąclecia — uciekli w przeciwnym kierunku. Liczba uchodźców, którzy zamienili się miejscami, wyniosła 711 000 Arabów (według danych ONZ) w porównaniu do 650 000 Żydów — mniej więcej tyle samo. (Kolejnych 200 000 żydowskich uchodźców uciekło na Zachód).

Żydom przyznano obywatelstwo w Izraelu i na Zachodzie. Zostali szybko przesiedleni i nie są już uchodźcami. Ale Arabowie palestyńscy pozostali bezpaństwowcami, wielu z nich zostało przeniesionych do obozów. Nie tylko nie zostali przesiedleni, ale stali się bronią jako  narzędzie wzmacniania  stałego konfliktu z Izraelem.

Dwa czynniki skutecznie uniemożliwiały im ponowne zasiedlenie.

Liga Arabska uchwaliła w 1959 r. rezolucję nr 1457, która zabrania państwom arabskim przyznawania obywatelstwa palestyńskim uchodźcom, „aby zapobiec ich asymilacji w krajach przyjmujących”.

Innym strażnikiem bezpaństwowości była Agencja Narodów Zjednoczonych ds. Pomocy Uchodźcom Palestyńskim (UNRWA), utworzona wyłącznie dla Palestyńczyków. Agencja nie tylko zapewnia opiekę zdrowotną, żywność i edukację w obozach dla uchodźców, ale także pozwala Palestyńczykom przekazywać swój status uchodźcy kolejnym pokoleniom  w nieskończoność.

Wymiana ludności stała się normą po większości konfliktów w XX wieku. Rzeczywiście, zasada wymiany ludności, a zatem i przesiedlenia, została zaakceptowana w prawie międzynarodowym, zarówno w Traktacie z Neuilly (1919) jak i Konwencji Lozańskiej (1923). Ponad milion Greków z Azji Mniejszej i Kaukazu zamieniło się miejscami z 400 000 muzułmanów z Grecji.

Po podziale subkontynentu indyjskiego na Indie i Pakistan nastąpiła ogromna wymiana ludności. W tym przypadku 8,5 miliona Hindusów opuściło Pakistan i wyjechało do Indii, a 6,5 miliona muzułmanów uciekło z Pakistanu. Miliony Niemców i Rosjan zostało zmuszonych do opuszczenia swoich domów podczas II wojny światowej i nigdy nie powróciło. 

Jak na ironię, to strona arabska jako pierwsza zaproponowała wymianę ludności na Bliskim Wschodzie. W 1949 r. Nuri Said, który pełnił przez kilka kadencji funkcję premiera Iraku, wysunął pomysł, aby 160 000 Żydów z Iraku zostało wymienionych na arabskich uchodźców, którzy opuścili tereny Izraela  w wyniku wojny. Ówczesny minister spraw zagranicznych Izraela, Mosze Szarrett, początkowo odrzucił wszelkie możliwe powiązania między tymi dwoma grupami uchodźców. Rząd Izraela uważał, że przejęcie porzuconej własności irackich Żydów było cynicznym podstępem. Ówczesny brytyjski ambasador poinformował, że zasada wymiany ludności była w zasadzie akceptowalna dla Izraela, ale pomysł wymiany 100 000 bezdomnych (palestyńskich) uchodźców na 100 000 (żydowskich) uchodźców, którzy zostawiliby swój majątek, został odczytany w Izraelu jako zwykłe wymuszenie.

Jak się okazało, Irak miał zalegalizować wywłaszczenie niemal całej społeczności żydowskiej w marcu 1951 r. Około 140 000 Żydów uciekło do Izraela. Tylko 14 000 palestyńskich uchodźców przybyło do Iraku. Do tego czasu Szarrett zaakceptował, że istniało powiązanie populacji uchodźców. Do 1970 r. kraje arabskie pozbyły się swoich Żydów — z których większość przybyła do Izraela w nędzy — jako ludzie pozbawieni obywatelstwa i majątku.

Dobrą rzeczą w planie Trumpa jest to, że przełamuje on trwające od dziesięcioleci tabu dotyczące przesiedleń Palestyńczyków i oferuje humanitarne rozwiązanie problemu uchodźców. Zmusza również państwa takie jak Egipt i Jordania do wzięcia części odpowiedzialności za konflikt, w którym uczestniczyły. Kraje takie jak Zjednoczone Emiraty Arabskie mogą pomóc udźwignąć ciężar finansowy. Ostatecznie „wymiana ludności” jest jedynym sprawiedliwym rozwiązaniem.

Lyn Julius jest autorką książki „Uprooted: How 3,000 Years of Jewish Civilization in the Arab World Vanished Overnight” (Vallentine Mitchell, 2018).

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

Super Bowl antisemitism ad is no way to tackle Jew-hatred

Feb12
Super Bowl antisemitism ad is no way to tackle Jew-hatred

Jonathan S. Tobin

Robert Kraft’s Foundation to Combat Antisemitism wasted $8 million on something that never mentioned Jews or antisemitism, while also failing to explain the real reason for its rapid spread.

Former NFL player Tom Brady and rapper Snoop Dogg. Photo by Lori Levine/Getty Images.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is an exemplary member of the American Jewish community. Over the years, he has donated a great deal of money to Jewish causes, locally in his hometown of Boston and in the State of Israel, even building a football stadium in Jerusalem. The National Football League magnate’s philanthropy testifies to his own strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, in addition to a decent concern for others less fortunate than himself, as shown by his family’s support of a variety of educational and health-care causes.

Among the efforts he has supported is the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS), which he founded with money he pledged as a result of his winning the Genesis Prize in 2019. The idea behind the foundation was to fight the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, as well as other efforts to battle Jew-hatred. The campaign itself was marked by a bright blue square with a moniker called “The Blue Box Campaign” that urges standing up to hate.

But for all of his various efforts on behalf of that important cause, probably none gained as much attention as the FCAS advertisement that appeared during the Super Bowl this past Sunday. It featured two mega-celebrities—rapper and actor Snoop Dogg, and NFL great Tom Brady, who won seven Super Bowls, including six for Kraft’s Patriots. In it, they spout various reasons why people hate each other before concluding that “things are so bad that we have to do a commercial about it,” before the two walk off together in a gesture of amity.

.

A missed opportunity

That’s a colossal mistake, as well as a missed opportunity that Kraft and anyone else who cares about the issue should deeply regret.

While no one should doubt the good intentions of Kraft, the 30-second blurb sums up everything that is wrong with the mindset and the efforts of liberal American Jewish efforts to deal with the problem.

Indeed, if that’s the best that the FCAS can manage, then Kraft would be well advised to close it up and transfer the money he’s currently wasting on it to those interested in fighting antisemitism in a way that will make a difference.

What’s wrong with the ad?

Part of the problem was the employment of Snoop Dogg. While he may be famous and a ubiquitous figure in pop culture and ads for all sorts of products, he’s also a well-known antisemite. As the Americans for Peace and Tolerance group noted in its criticism of the ad, he is an avowed supporter of the antisemitic Nation of Islam group and its 91-year-old leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has done more than anyone to spread Jew-hatred among American blacks and Muslims. Using him in a spot sponsored by a group that cares about antisemitism wasn’t mere negligence but a betrayal of the values Kraft has always exemplified.

There was more that was wrong about it other than Snoop Dogg.

The underlying premise was a decision to try to universalize the problem rather than one that would specifically focus on the issue of antisemitism. That’s based on an assumption that talking about antisemitism and Jews is a turnoff to a broad audience like the one that tunes into the Super Bowl. The NFL championship game is the most watched television program every year—an event that has assumed the status of a secular holiday. This year’s show reportedly attracted an average audience of 126 million viewers throughout the contest with a peak of 135.7 million watching, with the halftime show featuring rapper Kendrick Lamar being a major draw.

The universalizing impulse

With that in mind, the FCAS produced an ad that it supposed would appeal to the widest possible audience and therefore went all-in on universalizing the problem.

This is the same premise of most Holocaust education programs that have been employed in the United States in the past few decades. They are rooted in the belief that the only way anyone can be deterred from hating Jews is to depict the Holocaust and antisemitism as essentially no different than any other form of prejudice. In this way, as the FCAS ad seemed to be telling us, Jew-hatred is no different from disliking any group or people other than the majority. The solution, then, is for everyone to play nicely with each other the way Snoop and Brady—a black celebrity and a white one—appear willing to do.

But if history, as well as the present-day surge in Jew-hatred teaches, it is that antisemitism is not like other varieties of prejudice, be they major or minor. It is a specific virus of hate that targets Jews not merely as a function of bad behavior or a lack of awareness of our common humanity, but as a means of acquiring and holding onto political power.

To antisemites of every variety—be they left-wing, right-wing, Islamists, and yes, blacks—Jews aren’t merely the “other.” They are in the crosshairs to be despised and subjected to singular prejudice and discrimination, no matter their age, background, what they do or where they reside. They are, instead, an almost superhuman force for evil that must be eradicated. They alone are to be denied rights that even other discriminated minorities are given. And in so doing, various groups can wield power and pretend to be forces for good.

Why antisemitism spreads

That is why antisemitism is such a contagious and adaptable virus. It is, as scholar Ruth Wisse has noted, the most successful ideology of modern times since it has attached itself to a variety of movements, including fascism, communism, socialism, Islamists, and in our own day in contemporary America, woke ideologues who pretend to be “anti-racists.” The latter claims to be defending minorities against Jews who are “white” oppressors, as part of a struggle against racism that can never end. And, just as was true of the German Nazis and their collaborators, anything can be justified if it constitutes “resistance” to the Jews or the Jewish state, even the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, committed by the Hamas terrorist group and other Palestinian Arabs.

That is why rather than provoking sympathy for the Jewish state and Jews around the world, the Oct. 7 spree of mass murder, torture, rape and kidnapping in southern communities in Israel inspired an unprecedented surge in antisemitism.

In the face of such ideological fanaticism, merely telling people to be nice—as that Super Bowl ad did—does nothing. Such universalization trivializes the Holocaust. The same can be said for efforts that treat the widespread rationalization and even defense of antisemitic acts of intimidation and violence on American college campuses.

The collapse of the black-Jewish alliance

What makes this particularly disappointing is that last year’s FCAS Super Bowl ad was not quite so wrongheaded. Their 2024 featured Clarence B. Jones, a former speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against generic hate. The images that appeared on the screen while he spoke were specific in that they showed swastika graffiti on Jewish institutions and signs that spoke of the need to fight antisemitism. Though it bowed to liberal orthodoxy by also including an image that smoke of the largely mythical threat of prejudice against Muslims, it also left no doubt of the particular problem that, only a few months after Oct. 7, as Jew-hatred spread on campuses and in the streets of major U.S. cities, the country was facing.

Interestingly, since then Jones has broken with Kraft and the FCAS over what he depicts as insufferable Jewish “demands for loyalty.” Sadly, like many in the African-American community, he seems to think that a request to support the struggle of the Jewish people against the genocidal Islamists of Hamas is a bridge too far. In a USA TODAY op-ed in which Jones vented his resentment against his former allies, he blamed the refusal of Israelis and their American Jewish supporters for the collapse of the alliance between blacks and Jews that flowered during Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s time. In doing so, he not only embraces classic tropes of antisemitism like dual loyalty but also seems to think that Hamas’s efforts to accomplish the mass murder of Jews and destroy the one Jewish state on the planet is the sort of thing that friends should be willing to agree to disagree over rather than a patently evil cause.

As depressing as it is for a civil-rights-era veteran to write such things, it’s equally true that he—and those who might agree with him—is an ally not worth having.

But we’ve also seen why the timid universalizers of the FACs are dead wrong about the American people.

Libeling the American people

Contrary to the stereotypes spread by the political left, the American people as a whole are not antisemitic. Nor are they irredeemably racist against blacks, Hispanics or other minorities. And, as the election results last November showed, they don’t much appreciate the lectures of sermonizing liberals who talk down to them, and think that their patriotism and most cherished values and beliefs are racist or expressions of prejudice.

The universalizing of the battle against antisemitism plays right into the lies of the most prevalent form of American bigotry against Jews.

It is true that the last 16 months of brazen antisemitism and the mainstreaming of efforts to rationalize and even justify it in the liberal corporate media have presented new and unique challenges for Jews.

But the response of most Americans, which is to say that those who live outside the woke leftist bubble in which much of the press and other cultural elites live, is support for Israel and anger at students and other activists who chant for the genocide of Jews (“from the river to the sea”) and terrorism against them (“globalize the intifada”). President Donald Trump may only have the support of the approximate half of the electorate that voted him into office. But he speaks for the vast majority of the country that supports Israel and believes that foreigners who use their student visas to engage in anti-Israel (and anti-American) protests, encampments and often violent-like behavior should be deported.

Jews and the groups that purport to speak for them as well as to lead the fight against antisemitism like Kraft’s FCAS ought not to buy into the idea that America is full of hate. In this way, the Super Bowl ad was just another version of those ubiquitous lawn signs that say “Hate Has No Home Here,” as if to imply that those who don’t engage in such liberal virtue signaling, are haters. Trump, whose executive orders against antisemitism and full-throated support of Israel aren’t couched in amorphous platitudes like that of the 2025 Super Bowl ad, has had no trouble in identifying the sources of the current surge in antisemitism. Like him, they ought to be exposing the Jew-haters, and countering lies about Israel and the Jewish people that are integral to the left’s toxic myths of critical race theory, intersectionality and the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that are the root of the problem.

If they did, they might find that most Americans don’t need to be shamed into uniting against antisemitism but would, instead, readily support an unapologetic campaign to back Israel and join the fight to roll back the woke tide fueling much of contemporary American antisemitism.

This Super Bowl ad will soon be forgotten. But the decision to run something like it demonstrates just how clueless even well-meaning establishment figures like Kraft are when it comes to the world’s oldest form of prejudice. It’s a reminder that rather than relying on legacy groups and celebrity-driven foundations like that of Kraft, it is long past time to get rid of such organizations and pour Jewish philanthropic dollars into the hands of those able to think clearly about the problem. Jews need to stop their reflexive desire to universalize their tribulations, and even more, to stop blaming all of the American people for the transgressions of leftist elites.

Jonathan S. Tobin – is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

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