A Visit to the Old and New Hells of Europe Provides a Reminder of Israel's Importance
I just returned from a week-long journey through Hell! It began with a visit to the Auschwitz and Birkenau death camps in Poland, as a participant of the March of the Living, following a conference commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Laws and the 70thanniversary of the Nuremberg Trials. My week was consumed with recurring evidence of the worst crime ever perpetrated by human beings on other human beings – the Holocaust.
I traveled from the death camps to several small Polish towns from which my grandparents emigrated well before the Holocaust, leaving behind relatives and friends. During the course of my travels, I discovered the fate of two of my relatives. Hanna Deresiewicz (an original spelling of my family name) was a 16-year-old girl living in the small town of Pilzno when the Nazis arrived; she was separated from her siblings and parents. "The soldiers took several of the most beautiful Jewish girls for sex, and then killed them. [Among those] taken [was] Hanna Deresiewicz, 16." Another relative named Polek Dereshowitz, served as an "orderly" to the Commandant of Auschwitz when he was 15. He was suspended "from the ringbolts in his office because a flea had been found on one of his dogs." He was later gassed. This is not the first time I have visited Nazi death camps. I was fully familiar with the statistical evidence of how six million Jews were systematically murdered. I was also familiar with how the Nazi death machine searched out Jews in the furthest corners of Nazi occupied Europe, even as far as the island of Rhodes in the Aegean Sea, and transported them to Auschwitz to gas them. I also knew that this was the only time in human history when people were brought from far distances to camps designed for one purpose only – to kill every possible Jew they could, find no matter where they lived. And I knew that because this was part of a planned genocide of the Jewish People, it was most important to kill every child, woman and man capable of producing future Jews. But this visit, during which I learned the fate of two young members of my own family, brought the horrors home to me in a manner more personal than any statistic could provide. I was traveling with my wife and daughter, and I repeatedly imagined what it must have felt like for the parents and spouses of the murdered Jews to realize that everything precious to them was being annihilated, and that there would be no one left to morn them or to carry their seed to future generations. From the old Hell, Poland, I traveled to a new Hell, called Hungary. Budapest is a beautiful city, but it too, provided a hellish end to its Jewish residents in the final months of the Second World War, when Hungarian Nazis turned the Blue Danube into a red mass grave. They shot their Jewish neighbors and dumped their bodies into the Danube River, even as the Nazis were retreating. And now in modern-day Budapest, I was told of the resurgence of Nazism among many ordinary Hungarians. An increasingly popular fascist party, Jobbik, boasts of its anti-Semitism and of its desire to rid Hungary of its few remaining Jews. The Jobbik party in Hungary also hates Israel, and everything else that is a manifestation of Jewishness. I ended my trip meeting with a Jewish man of Greek background whose grandfather was murdered by the Nazis and who was now being targeted by Greek fascists for his outspoken defense of Israel and the Jewish people. Athens, too, has become a hotbed of Jew-hatred, with is popular fascist Golden Dawn party.
There was not a moment during my visit to Europe that I was not reminded of that continent's sordid history with regard to the Jewish people. Now, many Europeans — the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who were complicit in the murder of six million Jews — have turned against the nation state of the Jewish People with a vengeance. This time the bigotry emanates mostly from the hard left, but has the support of many on the new fascist hard right. The British Labour Party is as rife with hatred of the Jewish People and Jewish Nation as is the Hungarian fascist Jobbik party. Once again, European Jews are caught between the extremes of the Black and the Red. Extremists on both sides seek the demise of Israel, arguing that there is no place in a world with multiple Muslim and Christian nations for one state that is overtly Jewish in its character. Other Europeans seek to boycott Israel's products, its professors, and its performers. While still others simply apply a double standard to its actions — a standard they apply to no other nation, including their own. My visit to Europe made one thing unmistakably clear: if there is any group in the world that needs a safe homeland — a sanctuary from bigotry and hatred — it is the Jewish people. When Hitler was willing to expel them from Europe, before deciding to exterminate them, no country — not even the United States or Canada — would give them asylum. Britain closed the doors of what is now Israel to them. They had no place to go. So they were murdered by the Nazis and their willing executioners throughout Europe. There is no group whose history entitles it to a safe and secure homeland more than the Jewish people. For reasons that are difficult to explain, the hatred of the Jewish people and its nation defies rationality, but it is as real as the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the emerging fascist parties of Greece and Hungary. Jews today continue to be scapegoated in many parts of the world, and their nation state is demonized at the United Nations, on university campuses, in the media and in legislative assemblies. Following the Holocaust, there seemed to be an understanding that Jews would no longer be victimized. Now, less than a century after the Nazis came to power, that moratorium on Jew-hatred seems to have expired, as the memory of the Holocaust grows dim in most parts of the world. My week-long visit to Hell reaffirmed my commitment to defend Israel's right to exist, to speak out for Israel when it is unfairly attacked, and to defeat its enemies in the marketplace of ideas. We owe nothing less to the victims of the worst crime in the history of humanity — a crime that could not have occurred without the complicity of most of the world. And a crime that will not recur if there is a strong and secure Israel. Professor Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law. This article first appeared on Foxnews.com.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
|
Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
Contact Form
Showing posts with label Nuremberg Trials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuremberg Trials. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Europe Descending Again Into A Horror Show
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Did Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem Give Hitler The Idea To Exterminate Jews?
Netanyahu: “No Intention of Absolving Hitler,” But Don’t Ignore Arab Incitement
By JNS
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly.” (Proverbs 15:1-2)
image: https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Haj-Amin-al-Husseini-adolf-hitler.jpg

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolph Hitler in 1941. (Photo: German Federal Archives/ Wiki Commons)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuted the criticism voiced against him that he attempted to absolve Hitler from responsibility for the Holocaust, in the wake of comments he had made on incitement by the Nazi-sympathizing Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, during World War II.
On Tuesday, Netanyahu said at the 37th World Zionist Congress that Arab attacks on Jews during the 1920s “were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the Final Solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler [in a 1941 meeting in Berlin] and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ [Hitler] asked. [Husseini] said, ‘Burn them.’ And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer.”
Critics of Netanyahu’s comments have since pointed out that the Final Solution was already underway when Hitler met with Husseini. Furthermore, a spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Steffen Seibert, said that “all Germans know the history of the murderous race mania of the Nazis that led to the break with civilization that was the Holocaust.”
“This is taught in German schools for good reason, it must never be forgotten. And I see no reason to change our view of history in any way. We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own,” said Seibert, Reuters reported.
On Wednesday, Netanyahu clarified his earlier comments with a new statement that he “had no intention of absolving Hitler from his diabolical responsibility for the annihilation of European Jews. Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution—the extermination of 6 million Jews. He made the decision. At the same time, it is absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, a war criminal who encouraged Hitler, [Joachim von] Ribbentrop, [Heinrich] Himmler and others to destroy the Jews of Europe. There is much evidence of this, including the testimony of Eichmann’s deputy at the Nuremberg trials.”
Netanyahu further explained that the reason he brought up the issue was to illustrate the long history of Palestinian incitement against Jews, which existed before the establishment of the State of Israel.
“The Palestinian incitement to kill Jews, which began with [Haj Amin al-Husseini], continues today…For the murder to stop, the incitement must stop,” Netanyahu said.
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/51877/netanyahu-no-intention-absolving-hitler-dont-ignore-arab-incitement-jerusalem/#txrdEBeMygWqt8FW.99
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Is It Crazy To Release Terrorists? Should Israel Do So To Get Peace? We Don't Think So.
Israel as a 'crazy state': A new definition for political science?
No government on this earth has any legal right to free terrorists as a “gesture for peace.”

Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting at his office in Jerusalem March 23, 2014.
(Photo by: REUTERS)
Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting at his office in Jerusalem March 23, 2014.
(Photo by: REUTERS)
When I was still a young political science professor, back in the 1970s, the term “crazy state” was used sparingly in the lexicon of academic nuclear strategy. More precisely, it was referenced in assorted learned discussions of countries that may sometime be controlled by irrational national leaders, and could therefore depart from usual rules of mutual deterrence. The potential consequence of any such departure, we had already understood, could have included nuclear aggression, or perhaps even nuclear war.
A ready example, back then, would have been a nuclear Iraq (remember Saddam Hussein and Osirak?).
Today, I am prepared to advance an altogether different but equally useful meaning of “crazy state.” This definition is any country, but in particular, one that is half the size of America's Lake Michigan, and beleaguered by determinedly existential foes that would willfully trade its terrorist prisoners for presumed enemy “good will.” Even crazier, of course, is any such country that had already made this self-destructive set of concessions several times in the past, always with a conspicuous lack of success, and always with the result of eliciting more terrorism.
Soon, Israel could become this new sort of “crazy state.” Indeed, by the end of this month, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to free more Palestinian terrorists in the latest “round” of formally negotiated releases. Once again, many of those killers scheduled to be released had been directly involved with the burning, maiming, torturing and murder of Israeli noncombatants. Absolutely no one questions this heinous criminal involvement, least of all, the perpetrators.
In Jewish literature, any such impending terrorist release would at first seem to flow in part from the genre of the Wise Men of Chelm, long-cherished tales that celebrate the misadventures of recognizably hapless fools, lovable nitwits who inhabit a legendary shtetl.
But this latest political deal is hardly a comedic matter. True enough, the Israel that would be left in the wake of encroaching Palestinian statehood – isolated, fragmented, and vulnerable – could quickly come to resemble authentic shtetls. At the same time, this newly-residual Jewish community, marginalized by its own glaring lack of judgment and sense of decency, would be utterly lacking in humor.
There are also pertinent legal issues involved in any still-planned terrorist releases, egregious violations of “higher law” principles that would necessarily override those particular agreements fashioned between the so-called Palestinian Authority and Israel. Why “so-called?” On January 3, 2013, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas “decreed” the absorption of the “former PA” into the “State of Palestine.” This decree eliminated the PA, yet did not legally create a successor state.
To properly meet the criteria of sovereignty under international law, “Palestine” would have had to be more than self-declared. Specifically, it would have had to fulfill listed expectations of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934). This governing treaty on statehood is also sometimes known as the Montevideo Convention.
All countries coexist under a binding law of nations. A core element of this international law is the unambiguously sacred rule of Nullum crimen sine poena, or “No crime without a punishment.” An unchanging principle, drawn, significantly, from the law of Ancient Israel, it was reaffirmed for all nations at the precedent-setting Nuremberg Trials (1945-46).
To the extent that the president of the United States should concur in the upcoming Israeli terrorist release – and this extent, of course, is total – the US will also be in violation of international law. And it will be in opposition to the domestic law of the United States. International law is an integral part of US law, inter alia, by virtue of Article 6 of the US Constitution, the “Supremacy Clause,” and of a number of US Supreme Court decisions, most notably, The Paquete Habana (1900).
Every state has an unerring obligation under international law to apprehend and punish terrorists. This duty derives, in part, from the vital expectation, “No crime without a punishment.” It is codified widely and separately, but is also deducible from the authoritative Nuremberg Principles (1950). These fundamental rules emerged from the previously mentioned Nuremberg Trials.
Terrorism is more than just bad behavior. It represents a major crime under international law. In the past, some of the Palestinian terrorists released in “good will gestures” were also guilty of crimes of war and crimes against humanity. These Nuremberg-category crimes are so serious that the perpetrators are known in jurisprudence as Hostes humani generis, or “Common enemies of humankind.”
Always, international law presumes solidarity between individual states in the obligatory fight against terrorism. Israel has incontestable jurisdiction to punish crimes committed on its own territory; on occasion, it may also have the right to act under certain broader principles of “universal jurisdiction.” Its particular case for any such wider jurisdiction can be found, among other places, at the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.
No government on this earth has any legal right to free terrorists as a “goodwill gesture,” or as a “gesture for peace.” Terrorism is a criminally sanctionable violation of international law, a wrong that is never subject to any sanitizing manipulations by individual countries, however well-intentioned. In the United States, the president's power to pardon purposefully excludes any violations of international law.
In its original capture and punishment of Palestinian terrorists, Israel had effectively acted on behalf of all nations. Because some of these terrorists had also committed crimes directed against other states, Israel cannot now permissibly pardon these offenses contra other sovereigns. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu's next terrorist release would not, strictly speaking, represent a genuine “pardon,” it would still have the identical legal effect.
Under international law, Prime Minister Netanyahu's planned end-of-month release of Palestinian terrorists, essentially analogous to a mass pardoning of international criminals, would implicate the Jewish state for a “denial of justice.” This could have distinctly injurious new consequences. For one, any such Israeli freeing of terrorists would further undermine the Jewish state's binding legal obligation to incapacitate violent criminals from committing additional acts of barbarism and mass murder.
Will Netanyahu continue with inexcusable Israeli violations of law and justice by releasing still more Arab terrorists? If he does, his country will then fully deserve to be called a “crazy state.”
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of ten major books, and several hundred scholarly articles, dealing with terrorism, war, and international law. His popular essays and opinion columns have been featured in The Atlantic, The Jerusalem Post, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times, US News & World Report, The Washington Post, Ha'aretz and Israel National News. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

