Source: IPNOn 15 August 2018, through Warsaw, 4 of them marched with a phalange on the banners of a 100 ONRowce. good and no shouting. The freedom of speech and assembly are fundamental values for me, but I found that the phalange and the name of the organizer is adequate reason to take distant these constitutional rights. That's why 2 100 friends and strangers got in their way.
Most of the marchers did not know that under this symbol 90 years earlier Polish anti-semites and Hitler's sympathizers had gathered. Hitler, who caused a war after respective years, which brought death to at least 70 million people in the world, murdered 6 million European Jews, including 3 million Polish Jews and 300,000 Jews from Warsaw. However, freedom of assembly is not an absolute value. Not for people referring to fascist tradition and not in Warsaw.
Why am I writing about this? 5 years later, in October 2023, there was another demonstration on the streets of the same Warsaw, in the defence of the Palestinians, that no of the marchers saw anything incorrect with the openly carried anti-Semitic banner (the Star of David in a garbage basket). And both among those who walked on the march and among those who supported it in another way were the people with whom I sat on the earlier way of the ONR march.
Where are the limits of freedom?
The question of the limits of constitutional freedom of assembly and speech is not new. Both are the foundation of liberal democracy, due to the fact that without them, no democratic elections will be. At what point, then, as a state and as citizens, must we respond to defend these freedoms?
This is not just our problem. In the United States, a country with the most liberal approach to civilian liberties, the discussion has been going on for decades and has late rekindled. Let us remind – The First Amendment to the Constitution means the consent confirmed by the sentences of the SN to print pornographic content, hatred speech and proclaim racism. The State apparatus must not restrict the right to preach specified content.
The problem of freedom of speech one more time warms the public in the United States, due to the war in Gaza. We have all seen protests at colleges in the United States, including the clashes between judaic students and students supporting Palestine and police intervention. We could besides see the rector of the University of Pnsylvania incapable to answer the question whether the call to the Holocaust is in accordance with the university's statutes. In the April issue of The Atlantic, we can find the text of prof. Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley School of Law about events that became his participation. The prof. is simply a specialist in constitutional law and has been declared for many years a defender of freedom of speech. He has had a habit of inviting his students to his own home for an informal dinner before he starts classes with them. This year, a week before the campus event, posters signed by a student association calling for a boycott “a dinner with a Zionist erstwhile Gaza is starving”. The poster portrayed a prof. with a alternatively cruel facial expression, in the hands of a knife and fork. This is what the illustrations in Der Sturmer looked like – a hebrew cruel and gluttonous, hurting children. His fellow Jews and students asked him to request that the posters be removed from campus. However, he replied that he understood and shared their emotions, but has always publically defended freedom of speech and does not intend to halt doing so. Freedom of speech is the right of others to say things that may be unpleasant or uncomfortable for you.
However, this was not the end of the story. During dinner, 1 of the invited students went to the center and began reading the protest, supporting her own sound system. She didn't halt erstwhile the prof. and his wife demanded it. The professor's wife then tried to rip out the activist's microphone. Films from this event revolved social media, publications appeared in conventional media and signatures began to be collected under a petition demanding the removal of him and his wife from the university. The prof. of text entitled "No 1 Has a Right to Protest in My Home” And you gotta agree with him. What is not to be said in private territory is decided by its owner.
Poster suspended by Berkeley Law for Palestine on university campus
In the United States, erstwhile interpreting the First Amendment, it is considered that the regulation of freedom of speech is only justified if the message meets the criterion of “Fire!” in a crowded theatre room. In Europe, we set the limit of freedom of expression earlier due to the fact that the language of exclusion, contempt and hatred that leads to crime has been present in European culture for centuries. There are nations and communities peculiarly affected by it – groups undoubtedly the hardest experienced, are people of different skin color, homosexuals, Roma and Jews.
Modern colonialism, from its first to its last day of existence, was marked by racism leading to crime. From Conquista to British concentration camps in Kenya. The language of dehumanization, contempt and exclusion justified and accompanied these crimes. People of different skin colour were systematically dehumanized and even the top defenders of freedom succumbed to this disease. I'll remind you that George Washington utilized an artificial jaw made out of teeth torn from slaves.
In the case of Jews, the phenomenon has occurred since the beginning of the mediate Ages and the beginning of the dominance of Catholic religion (the rules discriminating Jews already contained the Code of Justinian). But it would be unfair to attribute it only to religion. He besides utilized the language of hatred in his crimes.
Homosexuality has besides been for centuries the subject of exclusion leading to crime. From smoking at the stakes in the mediate Ages to chemical castration that led Alan Turing to suicide. The language of this exclusion we meet all the time and today.
It must be said that these groups and women's movements have been the strongest active in liberalising attitudes and fighting the language of hatred we have seen since the second half of the 20th century. This change was based on the adoption of a definition of discrimination, which besides included language. Discrimination is contrary to the fundamental principles of liberal democracy, so the rule of free speech cannot be applied here. Opponents of this change believe otherwise, but even they accept that any attitudes are unacceptable (even Trump making highly misogynistic comments assures that he is “for women”, Ivanka Trump writes that “Dad is not a sexist”).
Words matter
The function of language in justifying crime begins with manipulating meanings. From now on, we are witnessing changes and “extensions” of meanings, which make words begin to carry with them a content different from their meaning. What this leads us to know thanks to 20th century totalitarianism, and the mechanisms of this were well described by George Orwell, Victor Klemperer and Michał Głowiński.
Because, as you can see from both the Polish and American examples, present this problem is one more time beginning to contact Jews, they are trying to draw attention to this fact, most likely without success. In this case, what do I mean by words that begin to carry a different content than their meaning?
Firstly, the change in the meaning of the word "Zionism",
so you can usage it without exposing yourself to the charge of stigmatized all the time anti-Semitism. Zionism was a movement and the thought behind it, whose aim was to recreate the “Jewish national headquarters” in the historical area of Israel. It arose in consequence to the case of Dreyfus in France. This movement received widespread support from Jews, regardless of their ideologies, only after the Holocaust, which led to the establishment of the State of Israel in part of the British Mandate area.
De facto Thus, anti-Zionism is simply a stand against the existence of the modern State of Israel. Of course, there are also meanings of the word “Zionism”, which can be best known by reading the “Protocols of the Sages of Zion” and earlier papers spreading conspiracy theories about Jews. For this reason too, “anti-Zionism” cannot be considered anti-Semitism. Yes, I know there are Jews who call themselves anti-Zionists. They are tiny groups of spiritual opponents on the 1 hand (we can only return to Jerusalem on the day of the Last Judgment) and supporters of assimilation on the other. Only no of them advocate the annihilation of the State of Israel. Nor do I want to fishy European anti-Zionists that they support Heredi's position that Jews can only return to Jerusalem on the Day of Judgment. However, only erstwhile they were not cremated, they did not commit suicide, and there are no tattoos on the body.
Secondly, the usage of the word "colonialism".
Colonialism is both by Oxford Dictonary and the Encyclopedia of PWN defined as "the practice of forceful gaining and maintaining political control of a stronger country over the weaker by genocide and colonization for their exploitation". Even judaic settlements in the West Bank of Jordan do not fulfil this definition. “Colonialism” is utilized by Israeli critics in the sense of “Setters colonialism”, or “a oppression to remove and replace indigenous people or nation through genocide” (LLL Cornel Law School). This clearly refers to the past of the US and is simply a concept completely incomprehensible on Polish grounds and fundamentally different from the European knowing of colonialism. The conscious or unaware import of this concept into European dirt is at least unfair. 1 may besides ask how much alt-left in America present by supporting Palestinians wants forgiveness for the crimes of their descendants. A akin question besides concerns the British and colonialism in their release (concentration camps in Kenya). This is simply a question for a separate discussion and it goes far beyond the scope of this text. prof. Leder could do this, due to the fact that psychoanalytical competences may be needed here.
Returning to the “settler colonialism” – in order to specify them in Palestine, we would gotta first find whether the natives in 1878 (i.e. before the first ally) were more than 15,000 Jews, descendants of residents surviving there continuously since the demolition of the Second Temple, or 250,000 Palestinians descendants of the Ummajyads from 1,400 years ago.
Third, the usage of the word apartheid,
to describe how Palestinians were treated by Jews surviving in Israel. Proof that the State of Israel’s activities in Gaza meet the criteria of Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) The 1973 UN General Assembly would be very difficult, even if South Africa and Amnesty global were to be prosecuted. Aperthaid is simply a racial segregation utilizing state violence, and is based on the ideology of the superiority of 1 race over the another and the purity of blood. The State of Israel's knowing of the judaic identity has nothing to do with the race (or alternatively with ethnos), and it does not request much cognition to realize it. Just remember the 2 largest alije at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. First, Beta of Israel, dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, and second, Jews from the erstwhile USSR, where a crucial part of 2 million immigrants would not even meet the criteria of the Nuremberg Act. The fact that the leader of a tiny coalition organization in the Netaniahu government describes himself as a racist and homophobe is not a reason. By following this criterion, we would gotta charge many countries, including European ones, with apartheid.
Finally, utilizing the word “genocide”
with respect to Israel's policy in Gaza. Genocide is simply a concept introduced by Rafal Lemkin and specified by the 1948 UN Resolution. It means the deliberate and intent to destruct in full or in part national, ethnic, racial or spiritual groups of the population. In little legal terms, we can talk about genocide erstwhile a powerful majority tries to execution all people belonging to a national or spiritual number within its reach. Apart from the Holocaust, crimes specified as Armenian slaughter and Tutsi's execution in Rwanda are considered to be, among another things.
This is simply a peculiar kind of crime of global law due to its aims and manner of conduct, and its definition causes that small of the crime can be defined by genocide despite the fact that its scale and cruelty do not give way. To say that Israel's behaviour "fulfills certain criteria of genocide" is to ask "but specifically which?" The signs of genocide can be referred to in the case of the Volyn massacre, although it is besides not genocide, which should besides be remembered by the Minister of Education before ordering the past textbooks to call it “genocide”.
Expanding definitions for crimes especially affecting us is not so easy, making it hard to prevent genocide in the future and has a propaganda dimension. Like the usage of "settelers colonialism" is an import of the American dispute into Europe. In order to realise the absurdity of moving the debate from the US to Europe, I will remind you that there, denial of the Holocaust is allowed (First Amendment) and in Europe, you go to prison.
And if we would like to look for a genocidal killer in Palestine, I would propose starting with Mufty Jerusalem Al-Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husajni. In 1941, he suggested to Hitler that, after he had conquered the mediate East, the Arabs would solve the judaic problem in Palestine in the same way that was done in Germany. Mufti in Belina remained until 1945 and at that time, among others, collaborated with Eichmann.
Where are we?
All these treatments are not linguistic problems. It's not even that it won't be a word to call genocide erstwhile it comes, due to the fact that if genocide is called a war between Israel and Hamas, what can we call China's force against the Uighurs or Burma towards Rohinja (both communities are cultural groups)? It is more crucial that these procedures make it highly easy to decision to the language of hatred as morally justified and even desirable and in the next step to physical violence. If we have a state acting simultaneously like Nazi Germany, colonial Belgium, South Africa before the overthrow of apartheid and Hutu in Rwanda, then shouting along with Palestinians "From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" is our duty, and sending an expeditionary army to destruct it would not be an exaggeration. Not to mention, of course, the protest at the judaic house, the prof. in Berkeley. And all hebrew in the world.
The armed conflict between Israel and the arabian planet is, alongside Kurdistan, the longest, though not the most bloody conflict in the modern world. It is surely the loudest in the planet and is besides on the streets of Europe, the US and the mediate East. Short episodes of peace divide periods of cold and hot war. For 50 years, this conflict has been taking place between the State of Israel with support from the US and Palestinians with support from any arabian countries and now Iran. Israel, utilizing its military advantage, frequently abused the rights of defence at that time, as thousands of civilians become victims. The settlers in the West Bank of Jordan meet the criterion of "settelers colonialists", and many of their actions are crimes (especially now). In turn, Palestinian terrorist organizations mark practically exclusively civilian targets and it is mainly civilians who die in attacks, and Palestinian civilians treat them as surviving shields. On the another hand, 7/10 murdered civilians who advocated Palestine's independence.
Note bene Israeli abuses of force cannot be compared to the actions of the US and European troops in all wars in which they have participated since the beginning of planet War II to Intervention in Iraq. From the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden to the fighting in Helmand and Fallujah.
The right-wing government of Israel, for at least 15 years, has adopted a strategy to frost talks with Palestine and make appearances of peace – internally through effective air defence, externally by concluding arabian states agreements. Hamas and Hezbollah, on the another hand, deny Israel the right to be and want to push the Jews into the sea. Since the early 20th century, it has been known that the only solution is 2 states, but this Gordian node both sides are trying to cut, not solve. Yes, I know there are people who consider 1 Jewish-Palestinian state to be a solution to the problem. It is more or little as realistic as proposing that Jews return to their ancestral country (also specified a proposal comes in the debate in the West).
For more than a decade, there has been a globalization of the conflict, which is to extend it to all Jews in the world. It means attacking Jews, regardless of their relation and opinions about Israel, for being Jews. This provokes the attitude of the Israeli government to anticipate that all Jews in the planet should unconditionally accept his actions. But if specified an attack on Jews for being Jews is not anti-Semitism, then it is not known what would be. And it surely does not bring us closer to lasting peace. Moreover, it is hard to see on the side of the arabian countries, especially Palestinian organisations, the desire to enter into an agreement that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. From the arabian League's consequence to the division of the British Mandate to the slaughter of October 7, which besides aimed at preventing Israel's agreement with Saudi Arabia.
I have a feeling that not so much in a crowded area individual shouts “Burnes!” but brings petrol bottles into it. I see social reactions to the effort to set fire to the Scissor Synagogue. I know the net is the habitat of Russian trolls whose goal is to warm emotions. But if, among the more than a 100 comments that I have reviewed under the publications on this subject, there is not a single 1 expressing outrage, and all of them, euphemisticly speaking, are full of resentment toward Jews and Israel, then this means something.
My individual limit of freedom of speech allowed in Poland has not changed in years, so, as I erstwhile stood in the way of neofascists marching through Warsaw, so I will fight those who support “new” anti-Semitism. Not only excluding them from my private space (e.g. my Facebook), but besides protesting in public space. Even if my friends and friends were on the march. Even if they do it with good intentions. These good intentions are akin to the intentions behind hanging up a Jew's image with money. seemingly out of respect and as a luck teller.
As a Polish Jew, I am not only sorry that the same people who powerfully protest the falanda on banners do not see the problem in the openly anti-Semitic banner on the streets of Warsaw. In the U.S., campus protesters usage the word "by any neans sensesary" for the 7/10 slaughter. The concept was introduced by post-war Marxists, afraid the armed fight against colonialism, and in Polish it means "the end justifies means". Therefore, I am not amazed by my judaic family, friends and friends that they are simply afraid. Like their parents and grandparents in 1968, in 1946 in Kielce, in 1943 hiding on the Aryan side in Warsaw, in the bench ghetto behind Sanacja. They're not afraid of Palestinians. They're afraid of Poles.
Synagogue of Nożyków, May 1, 2024
I hesitated a long time before publishing this text, but the 3 Molotov cocktails, which first have hit the Nożyków Synagogue in Warsaw, made me realize that I have nothing to wait for. Especially since the cocktails hit 1.5 meters from the window and that's what the synagogue was missing for the first time since 1943 in Warsaw.
