web analytics
September 17, 2014 / 22 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘World War II’

Video: Bea Abrams Cohen – California’s Oldest Female Veteran

Monday, April 30th, 2012

Bea Abrams Cohen, who turned 102 in February, believes in mitzvahs. “Pay back. It works,” she told the LA Times.

Bea enlisted during World War II and worked for more than seventy years supporting the U.S. military and charity organizations.

She was born in Bucharest, Romania, and immigrated to America in 1920 with her mother, two siblings and stepfather. The stepfather, a widower, had nine children of his own. It’s like the Brady Family but with Rumanian Jews.

Bea won’t forget Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. “I was at the Pantages Theatre,” she told the Times. “The lights went on, the screen went black, and they said, ‘We’re at war.’ ”

She took a class on riveting and went to work, producing munitions and war supplies for Douglas Aircraft.

“I wanted to pay back for being an American,” she says.

Later on she enlisted and was sent to England, working in the communications department with top-secret documents and working in the kitchen.

She got married in 1948 and moved to Westchester, where she’s been living for the rest of that century and now this one. She told the Times she believes in “the power of prayer,” and explained that every time she gets into a fix, God sends her an angel.

Makes sense.

Will Israel Ever Get Serious About Treason?

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Earlier this year Israel passed a law that would strip Israelis of their citizenship if convicted of espionage or treason. Condemned for this by countries all over the world, almost all of whom have far harsher anti-treason laws than Israel, the Israeli government has yet to apply the law to anyone.

Sometimes called the “Azmi Bishara Law,” it was motivated by the fact that an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, Azmi Bishara, from one of the Arab parties, had openly engaged in espionage and treason, including passing on intelligence to the Hizbullah terrorist organization while it was firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Bishara is now in hiding and has yet to be prosecuted.

The Anti-Israel Lobby denounced this law as “racist,” just as it denounces everything Israel does as racist (including rescuing Haitian earthquake victims). The bleating from Bash-Israel NGO groups about supposed Israeli “apartheid” sound particularly absurd when one realizes that Israel is one of the few democracies that has not utilized mass internment of hostile minority populations that identify and, in some cases, collaborate with the enemy in time of war. And Israel has yet to charge any of its extreme leftists with treason, no matter how brazen their words and deeds.

Treason itself is left undefined under Israeli law, and in general it has been interpreted by legal authorities in Israel so loosely that virtually no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

On paper Israeli penal law defines treason as “acts that impair the integrity of Israel” or “impair its sovereignty,” and the granting of assistance to the enemy during time of war. Based on British law, Article 99(a) of the Israel Criminal Code states, “If a person with intent to assist an enemy in war against Israel commits an act calculated to do so, he is liable to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.”

It should go without saying that no one has ever been sentenced to either punishment for treason in Israel. Only a few people engaged in actual espionage – including nuclear spy Mordecai Vanunu and some old-time spies for the former Soviet Union – have ever even been charged with treason.

The Israeli law against treason is little more than a joke. Nearly all the Arabs who sit in the Knesset openly communicate and even collaborate with the enemies of Israel. They support their agendas and some have engaged in violence.

There are far left Israeli Jews who work against the sovereignty and integrity of their own country every day. Examples of this would include issuing calls for Israel’s destruction or declaring support for international boycotts against Israel. No one has been prosecuted for any of that.

The Israeli attorney general is quite militant when it comes to prosecuting right-wing Israeli Jews for “incitement” and “racism,” including offenders who wear politically incorrect t-shirts or affix bumper stickers on their cars that some might find in poor taste.

Bear in mind that Israel is in a permanent state of war. Even so, Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftists never go to jail for collaborating with the enemy during times of war.

It is instructive and illuminating to examine the history of what other Western democracies have done with traitors, especially during times of war.

Many countries have the death penalty for domestic traitors; some of these anti-treason laws are quite old. Several countries have been putting teeth into old anti-treason laws recently because of international terrorism.

Britain’s Treason Act, which allowed for the prosecution of British nationals supporting the enemy in time of war, went back to 1351. One famous application of the act was the trial of Roger Casement, who was accused of collaborating with Germany during World War I. There was debate during the trial over whether the act applied to treason committed outside Britain or only on British soil. The prosecution carried the day and the traitor was executed.

Arizona Shootings Expose Liberal Hypocrisy

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

The shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, along with federal judge John Roll (a Republican appointee) and numerous others, including a nine year-old constituent of the Congresswoman, resulting in the deaths of six (including the judge and the little girl) and brain injury to the congresswoman, prompted the usual ruminations.

While everybody made appropriate noises about the tragic circumstances, the losses, and the apparent madness of a deranged shooter, it wasn’t long before media pundits and many politicians were blaming political adversaries, with the cries going up against the usual suspects: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News (of course).

Even before we knew much about the shooter (who turned out to be a seeming paranoid who believes the U.S. government is using grammar to control our minds), aggressive, left-leaning pundits like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blamed those on the right.

Speaking of Congresswoman Giffords, Krugman wrote: “She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona . . .”

Thus Giffords, herself conservative on a number of issues, was targeted by bloodthirsty right-wingers, in Krugman’s view. According to Krugman, “Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.”

Somehow forgotten, by Krugman and others echoing comments like his, is all the hate their own side pumped into the discourse over the past decade that contributed to the warming of the current political climate. For eight long years, beginning in 2000, Krugman and his cohorts carried on relentless rhetorical warfare against the Bush administration and Republicans more generally.

George W. Bush, they told us, stole his first presidential election from Al Gore (when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of halting a seemingly endless demand for recounts by the Gore campaign), and his second election against John Kerry, if you believe the more extremist partisans on the left.

Bush, they baldly and routinely proclaimed, was a liar, a draft dodger, a lush, a drug abuser, a dolt and a political poseur scheming to suppress American democracy by subverting the Constitution. He never planned to step down when his terms were done, we were assured. He was a budding dictator preparing a coup d’état against our democracy. And, oh yes, he tortured captured terrorists and kept large numbers of them bottled up in a military prison at Guantanamo, violating their supposed Constitutional rights.

(Meanwhile his administration’s efforts to try those same prisoners by traditional wartime military tribunals were blocked at every turn by critics, enabling them to further claim that Bush was denying them their day in court!)

It’s legitimate in political debate to disagree on policy questions but the criticism of George W. Bush never stopped there. Bush’s opponents on the left labeled him a fascist, another Hitler, a murderer. Journalists were as hostile in their attacks on the president as anyone. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait famously wrote that he “hated” George W. Bush. And movie makers, left-leaning on balance themselves, were no less visceral in their contempt for the 43rd president, one even making a film about his fictional assassination. Imagine the public uproar if the same thing were done about President Obama.

Recently a friend of mine, a dedicated supporter of our current president, sent me an e-mail lampooning critics of the new healthcare law, slamming such criticism as “racist.” When I wrote back and called him on it he replied that it was racist because the law was being labeled “Obamacare” by its opponents, an attempt, he believed, to demonize the president. He never replied when I asked if this was anything like calling the 2003 tax reductions the “Bush tax cuts.”

In the minds of some, criticism of one’s political adversaries seems reprehensible, even racist, when it’s directed against those they support but not when the shoe is on their foot. Eight years of bitter, overheated denunciations of a Republican president and his administration leave no trace in the political firmament of some who only see the righteousness of their own positions while demonizing their opponents. Worse, many of them see no harm in using such terrible moments to turn disaster into opportunity.

Changes Ahead? American Nuclear Policy And Israeli Strategic Doctrine (Part II)

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Fourth, the Obama anti-nuclear vision does not provide any useful guidance on how to deal with those refractory states and sub-states that may not be subject to ordinary deterrent threats. This brings to mind the perplexing security problem of prospective enemy irrationality.

How, then, should Israel’s own developing plans for dealing with non-rational adversaries be affected by the Obama anti-nuclear vision, especially where these adversaries (e.g., Iran) may soon become irreversibly nuclear?

Fifth, long-term, Israeli leaders and strategists must learn to consider seemingly irrelevant literature, real literature, not the narrowly technical or tactical materials normally generated by professional military thinkers, but the genuinely creative and artistic product of writers, poets and playwrights. The invaluable intellectual insights that can be gleaned from this literature may sometimes provide a far better source of authentic strategic understanding than the visually impressive, but very often misleading, matrixes, mathematics, metaphors and scenarios of the “experts.” Regarding limitations of the experts, it would be good for planners to consider the work of the great Spanish existentialist, José Ortega y Gasset, especially The Revolt of the Masses and History as a System.

Sixth, Israeli leaders and strategists should acknowledge and also act upon the occasional and significant advantages of private as opposed to collective strategic thought. Here, they should be reminded of Aristotle’s prescient view: “Deception occurs to a greater extent when we are investigating with others than by ourselves, for an investigation with someone else is carried on quite as much by means of the thing itself.”

There is a correct time for collaborative or “team” investigations, but in certain matters concerning Israeli security, as in science generally, one may sometimes discover optimal reasoning and greater value in the private musings of single individuals. This observation refers with particular relevance to strategic doctrine.

Seventh, Israeli leaders and strategists now need to open up, again, and with even greater diligence and formal insight, the policy question of nuclear ambiguity. Possibly under growing urgings from Obama’s will to denuclearize, perhaps even under very specific pressure to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), they will have to understand that any doctrinal re-examination of the “bomb in the basement” is not just another academic exercise. Rather, such re-examination could come at a time that new American strategic guidance would openly condemn any indispensable Israeli nuclear disclosure.

How, then, should Israel balance its almost ritual obeisance to Washington with its more obvious and indisputably more primary need for survival?

Eighth, again with a very clear view to changing nuclear doctrine in the United States, Israeli leaders and strategists will need to expand their consideration of much wider questions of nuclear weapons and national strategy. Ideally, this would be done in concert with all of the other above-listed strategic requirements. Key issues here would be nuclear targeting doctrine (counter value versus counterforce); preemption, and ballistic missile defense.

Depending upon Israel’s willingness to risk Washington’s displeasure, these strategic postures will be more-or-less impacted by President Obama’s naive and dangerous nuclear vision.

Nuclear weapons are neither good nor evil in themselves. In the case of Israel, such weapons incontestably represent an important instrument of peace. They are, in fact, an utterly critical impediment to regional nuclear war.

With its nuclear arsenal unimpaired, Israel – assuming rational adversaries – could effectively deter enemy unconventional attacks, and also most large conventional ones. While still in possession of such an arsenal, Israel could also launch assorted non-nuclear preemptive strikes against an enemy state’s hard targets. Without its secure nuclear arsenal, ambiguous or disclosed, any such expressions of anticipatory self-defense could trigger the onset of a much wider and more catastrophic war. This is because there would no longer be any compelling threat of an Israeli counter-retaliation.

Israel’s secure nuclear arsenal is required to fulfill essential deterrence options, preemption options, war-fighting options and even the so-called (last resort) “Samson Option.” This arsenal should never be negotiated away in any formal international agreements, especially in the midst of an American-brokered “peace process” and its attendant creation of “Palestine.” This Israeli existential obligation obtains no matter how appealing might be the idealized vision of “a world without nuclear weapons,” and no matter how high the authority of this deceptively attractive vision’s most enthusiastic and visible advocate.

In the final analysis, regrettable as it may seem, the structure of long-term Israeli security must be built upon the recognizable foundations of secure nuclear forces and strategic doctrine, and not on the thoroughly idealized world constructed by an American president.

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971), Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is the author of ten books and several hundred scholarly articles dealing with international relations and international law. Born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II, he lectures and publishes widely on nuclear matters in the United States, Europe and Israel. Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue, Dr. Beres was the Chair of Project Daniel (Israel).

Israel’s Rebirth ‘A Boring Story’ To U.S. Jews: An Interview with American Zionist Hero Dr. David Gutmann

Monday, March 29th, 2010

In 1947-1948 I lived in Boro Park where, against parental and rabbinic advice, I joined a Zionist group. By 1950 I was packing machine-gun parts for Israel in a home not far from the Young Israel. But what I did as a child does not compare to what my friend and colleague David Gutmann did for love of Zion at that very time on the dangerous open seas.

Dr. Gutmann was a 21-year-old Jewish-American volunteer sailor for Aliyah Bet, the name given to “illegal” Jewish immigration into British-controlled Palestine (1934-1948). Hundreds of boats tried to run the British blockade. One was stranded on the Danube and its passengers later sent back to Vienna and executed, another boat was bombed by the Soviets.

Once Hitler was defeated, British disdain for Jews quickly became visible. Some Jews made it, many (more than 1,600) drowned, and most were captured and imprisoned on Cyprus. The British actually sent some boats right back to Europe, to Germany, as was the case with the SS Exodus. This public relations fiasco backfired; my friend Ruth Gruber’s on-board photo of the SS Exodus made the cover of Life magazine.

The Jewish Press recently met with Dr. Gutmann. Although he is no longer young, he is a large and sturdy man, a solid presence. He is also very witty. His generation of heroes is mainly gone but he is still here.

The Jewish Press: How did you become a sailor?

Dr. Gutmann: I served in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II.

The ship manifests list you as serving on two ships, the Paducah-Geulah and the Ben Hecht. Were they the same kind of boat? Who served with you?

I served first on the Hecht, after that on the Geulah. I was an engine room oiler on the Hecht, a second engineer on the Geulah. The Hecht was purchased and run by the Irgun. She was a German-built twin-diesel luxury yacht originally named Abril (April). She sailed for the U.S. Navy on anti-sub patrol during World War II.

After the Brits left Palestine, the Hecht/Abril became part of the Israeli navy and was used to launch frogmen against Egyptian naval craft off Gaza. Last I heard, she was running tourists between Naples and Capri.

The Hecht/Abril’s crew was a mix of Jews and non-Jews, kids and veteran seamen, crazies and idealists . We ended up in Acco (Acre).

The Geulah was purchased and run by the Haganah. A twin-screw steamship built around 1905, she served during World War II as, I believe, a gunnery-training vessel on the Great Lakes. She was scrapped in Naples in ’49. The Geulah’s crew was more decorous than the Hecht’s complement. A mix of veteran sailors (Jews and non-Jews), and Zionistic college kids.

We also had a few exiled Spanish loyalist sailors and our second mate was Don Miguel Boeza, who had been high admiral of the loyalist navy. Our captain was Rudy Patzert, an old commie married to a Jew. He wrote a book about the voyage – Running the Palestine Blockade. Our Haganah commander was Moka Limon, a legendary hero of Aliyah Bet who later became admiral of Israel’s navy. He was the guy who pulled off the legendary “boats of Bordeaux” operation. We all ended up in the Cyprus prison camps.

Would you consider writing a memoir?

Depends on the kind of memoir. I wouldn’t want to deal with the whole operation – too much I don’t know. Perhaps something more personal and anecdotal. I’ve got a few good stories.

Are Jews still eager to hear your stories?

Despite the fact that I’m willing to speak without honoraria, even during 2008 – Israel’s 60th anniversary year – the response from heads of congregations was at best tepid. And since then, perhaps one in three rabbis show interest. Some who showed initial interest never followed up. Nowadays, they might suggest 10-minute gigs at men’s club breakfast meetings.

Why the disinterest?

Rahm Emanuel reportedly said, “I’ve had it with Israel.” I think a lot of Jews now feel that way. They’re tired of worrying about Israel, unendingly, from crisis to crisis . The Palestinians are the heroes of our victim-adoring age; accordingly, many liberal Jews have come to believe the Palestinian “Nakba” revision, the lies that turned a miracle into another Jewish blood libel.

But whatever their politics, modern Jews have little sense of history. I speak about the ’48 war, and the lies about it that are now believed by too many Jews. For most U.S. Jews, the ’48 war is an old and perhaps boring story. They saw “Exodus”; they don’t want to see it again. They don’t realize that history is the present, and that [post-Zionist] revisionist history is central to the attack on contemporary Israel. It is one of the manifold attempts to bring it down, first morally and then physically.

Did you stay in touch with others from Aliyah Bet?

Yes. I was one of the founders of the now defunct American Veterans of Israel organization. I held office and attended their reunions in Israel and the States. But that was then. Most of us are dead now, and I haven’t had a drink with an old shipmate in years.

Bob Levitan, our captain, participated indirectly in the breakout from Acco. With his Leica, he took ID-type photos of all the Irgun and Lehi prisoners, and these were later used in the phony ID cards issued to them prior to their escape.

What similarities, if any, do you see between American Jewish attitudes in the 1930s and 1940s and today?

In the 1930s and ’40s, American Jews sanctified FDR. Now they are equally loyal to Obama. Despite their growing awareness of the Holocaust, during World War II American Jews for the most part stayed silent – very few mass protests and very little covert action. “FDR will save the Jews.”

My fear is that too many contemporary Jews are preparing to repeat this pattern. They will not embarrass the great and good Obama with their selfish concerns for what they view as a victimizing country – Israel – that no longer deserves their loyalty. Too many will follow Obama’s lead and stay silent while Israel is weakened or even destroyed.

Understanding Our Global Misfortunes

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009
            In some important respects, Iran is only a microcosm. Whatever happens next within that particularly troubled and troubling country, many of the deepest underlying problems and divisions will remain genuinely global.This is because revolution, despotism, war and terrorism are always generic issues in world politics. In the end – that is, civilizationally – they will need to be understood and confronted on a broadly international level.

 

            “The blood-dimmed tide is loosed,” observed the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, and “everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.”  Today’s simmering Iranian instability and belligerence are more a symptom of generic civilizational fragility than merely an isolated (albeit catastrophic) disease. Beneath the surface, all world politics readily reveal a distinctly common and malignant disorder. This is the seemingly irremediable incapacity of many human beings to find both meaning and identity within themselves, as individuals. 

 

            Iran is only a microcosm. From the beginning, all world affairs have been driven by some form or another of “tribal” conflict, by incessant and deadly struggles between more-or-less warring groups. Without a clear and persisting sense of an outsider, of an enemy, of an “other,” whole societies routinely feel lost in the world. Drawing self-worth from their membership in the state or the faith or the race – from what Freud had insightfully called the “primal horde” – these humans often cannot satisfy even the most minimal requirements of interpersonal coexistence.

 

            Every sham may have a patina. Our very obvious progress in the technical and scientific realms still has no real counterpart in basic human relations. Yes, of course, we can manufacture jet aircraft and send astronauts into space and even communicate by “twitter” (whatever that means; I’m not really sure), but before we are allowed to board commercial airline flights we must first take off our shoes. The point of such removal is certainly not to enhance our personal comfort, but rather to ensure that we won’t blow up the plane.

 

            What kind of world is this? Iran is only a microcosm. We humans surely want to be upbeat about the whole world. We are turned off by anyone who speaks candidly about life’s day-to-day vagaries, or about its simultaneously absent ecstasies. Whenever a friend or colleague is asked, “How are you?” the visceral answer must always be the same: “I’m great.” 

 

             What nonsense! In fact, there remains very great pain and loneliness throughout the world.  Further, in certain matters, nothing important ever really changes:plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. In the truly critical issues of mega-survival, we humans may now be living far more precariously than ever before. Of course, this is especially apparent to the always-imperiled people of Israel – imperiled because millions of mortal Arab/Islamist enemies are still guided by the thoroughly atavistic primal tribal dynamics of “the herd.”

 

             What a world! Iran is only a microcosm. The veneer of human civilization is still razor thin, particularly in large portions of the Arab/Islamist world.  However conversant with statistics and science, certain nations in our world can still glance smugly over mountains of fresh corpses, and announce without apology or embarrassment that “God Is Great!” Assorted mass societies greedily suck out the very marrow of human wisdom, reverence and compassion in a deeply misguided dash to “power.”  In the Middle East, among Israel’s existential foes, the ultimate form of sought-after power has absolutely nothing to do with land or territory. It has to do with something that can never be understood in Washington. It has to do with power over death.

 

            Globally, hope exists, to be sure, but it must now sing softly, in an undertone.  The “blood-dimmed tide” creates a deafening noise, but it is still possible to listen for transient sounds of grace and harmony.  We must all quickly learn to pay very close attention to our most intimate human feelings of empathy, anxiety, restlessness and desperation. These feelings are always determinative, and always – ultimately – universal.

 

             As Jews, we already understand that life on earth must ultimately be about the individual. In essence, therefore, we see that the time for “modernization,” “globalization,” “artificial intelligence” and “new information methodologies” is already over.  To survive together, all residents of this endangered planet must first rediscover an authentic human life that is detached from meaningless and corrosive distinctions (“us” and “them”), banal conformance, shallow optimism and contrived happiness. Only in this vital expression of an awakened human spirit may we finally learn that agony is more important than astronomy, that cries of despair are more serious than the disembodied powers of technology, and that our tears have a much greater significance than robotic smiles. “The man who laughs,” commented the poet Bertolt Brecht, “has simply not yet heard the horrible news.”

 

             Iran is only microcosm. The true and persisting instabilities and barbarisms of life on earth can never be undone by improving global economics, by building larger missiles, by fashioning new international treaties, by spreading democracy or even by periodic revolutions.  We inevitably interrelated humans still lack a tolerable future not because we have been too slow to learn, but because too many among us have stubbornly failed to learn what is truly important.

 

LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton  (Ph.D., 1971) and is Professor of International Law at Purdue University.  Born in Switzerland at the end of World War II, he is the author of many books and articles dealing with world politics, law, literature and philosophy. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.

Commemorating The Start Of World War II

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

 


    The official beginning of World War II was September 1, 1939. On that day German soldiers invaded Gdansk after bombarding the city with a military warship. As part of the Polish Government’s official series of events marking seven decades since the start of World War II, Poland’s Jewish community and the Jerusalem-based “Shavei Israel” organization held a special ceremony yesterday in the Gdansk synagogue to commemorate the outbreak of the war, which paved the way for the Holocaust.

 

     Well-known Jewish dignitaries who participated in the ceremony included President of Poland’s Jewish communities, Piotr Kadlcik; President of the Gdansk Jewish community, Michal Samet; and “Shavei Israel,” Chairman Michael Freund. In addition to the aforementioned, senior Polish and foreign government officials were also present.  

 

     The initiative behind the ceremony came from “Shavei Israel” Chairman Michael Freund, who has played a key role in strengthening Polish Jewry by dispatching young rabbis to serve in Warsaw, Krakow and Wroclaw and sponsoring seminars and educational trips to Israel for young Polish Jews.

 

 


Synagogue in Gdansk (Danzig) Poland, one of the first cities to fall to Germany, in WW II

 

 

   Chief Rabbi of Poland, Rabbi Michael Schudrich, recited a memorial prayer for the six million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, and recalled the Jewish soldiers who served in the Polish Armed Forces and died while fighting the Nazi invaders. A number of young Jews from across Poland, many who have just discovered their Jewish roots, took part, which highlighted the ongoing revival of Polish Jewry. Therefore, the slogan, “70 years later we are still here,” was the banner under which the ceremony took place.     

 

     In his remarks at the ceremony, Shavei Israel Chairman Michael Freund said: “It is incumbent upon us to mark this sad day, to ponder its consequences and to internalize its lessons. But we cannot and must not lose hope – a Jew is not allowed to despair. The participation of young Polish Jews in this ceremony, many of whom have only recently returned to their Jewish roots, is compelling proof that the Nazis and their collaborators ultimately failed. Seven decades after the Holocaust, the Jewish spark is once again coming to life here in Poland.”

 

 


Rabbi Michael Schudrich speaking at the ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

 

 

    “Israel and world Jewry must rise to the challenge and facilitate this process of reconnecting young Poles with their Jewish roots. Shavei Israel is proud to be partnering with Poland’s Jewish community and helping to foster this historic rebirth. Seventy years later, Polish Jewry is still here,” said Freund.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/commemorating-the-start-of-world-war-ii/2009/09/09/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: