Posted on 07/30/2013 5:09:32 AM PDT by SJackson
Exclusive: While European Jewish organizations express shock, Roman Giertych accepts his family’s anti-Semitic past, disavows it, and promises positive results by September
LONDON – The European Jewish Association, a Brussels-based group, has hired the former leader of a political party that has been accused of anti-Semitism to launch a legal challenge to the shechita ban in Poland, the Times of Israel has learned.
Roman Giertych is the former chair of the League of Polish Families, a far-right party that in 2001 and 2005 elections received eight percent of the vote, but later collapsed. While Giertych has never himself been accused of anti-Semitism, the then-Israeli ambassador to Poland, David Peleg, refused to work with him on Holocaust issues when he served as education minister and deputy prime minister in 2006-7, citing the “anti-Semitic policy” of his party.
For his part, Giertych accepts that his family has a history of anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic associations, but told the Times of Israel, “It is not the history of myself. There is no anti-Semitism in my life.”
Philip Carmel, a spokesman for the European Jewish Congress, called the Giertych appointment “ill-advised” and “misconceived.”
“It looks extremely weird that of all the lawyers in Poland, they picked one who was a leader on the far-right,” he says. “I wouldn’t say he is personally anti-Semitic, but the League of Polish Families is not the kind of political group known for its closeness to the Jewish community.”
The director of the European Jewish Association, Rabbi Menachem Margolin, defended the appointment, which he made because Giertych is “an excellent lawyer and has good contacts in the corridors of power where this decision will be made.”
The fact that he has “repented” his past “only adds,” said Margolin. “Some of our best friends in the European Parliament are former anti-Semites who want to fix the past and help us.
“I don’t see what the sin is in trying to reach a solution. If he has the right connections, not to take him on would be ridiculous. The exact same organizations [which are critical of EJA] would speak to any anti-Semite in order to reach a solution.”
Giertych, who opened a law practice after his party lost all its seats in 2007, has been engaged to petition the Polish Constitutional Tribunal regarding the legality of ritual slaughter in Poland. There is currently uncertainty as to whether shechita is allowed, as a ban on shechita for the purpose of export has been in place since January, while another law, the 1997 Act on the Relation of the State to the Jewish Communities in Poland, protects religious slaughter for the local Jewish community.
A bill aiming to reverse the ban failed to pass earlier this month.
Carmel claimed that Giertych had a political interest in defending shechita because the ban on exporting kosher and halal meat cost the Polish economy hundreds of millions of euros, and the League of Polish Families “were defenders of agricultural interests in Poland. They had very close links to the meat industry.”
It was irresponsible, he argued, to frame the issue as one of economic interest: “Our position is to defend the rights of the Jewish community in Poland to practice their religion. It is not our job to defend the rights of the meat industry in Poland.”
Carmel added that it was “almost unthinkable” that the EJA approached the constitutional court at the same time as the local Jewish community, which had been advised to do so by the government, calling it an “interference” in internal Polish-Jewish affairs.
His comments were echoed by the president of the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland, Piotr Kadlcik, who expressed “surprise” that Giertych was hired. Although he would not comment on his political background, he noted that Giertych is not a constitutional lawyer, and said he “highly doubts” that his political connections could be helpful in the constitutional court.
The battle for shechita, he said, should be left to the Polish Jewish community and other Jewish organizations, without the uncoordinated involvement of organizations like EJA.
“This law affects us directly,” said Kadlcik, who had just come out of a meeting with government officials aimed at advancing a solution.
Margolin, however, countered that “this is not an internal Polish matter but a European-Jewish one,” as a successful ban in Poland will automatically encourage opponents of shechita elsewhere on the continent to launch legal battles.
“It has been absolutely proven that we cannot rely on the local Jewish community” to reverse the ban, he said, following the failure of the bill intending to-reinstate shechita earlier this month.
He called the EJC’s objection to his involvement “hypocrisy”, as multiple European-Jewish organizations have railed against the decision of the Polish Jewish leaders to handle the recent shechita bill alone, claiming they should have accepted offers of help from groups with experience fighting shechita bans elsewhere.
Margolin himself is on the record calling for the resignation of Polish Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich following the failure of the shechita bill.
He noted that he has already had intensive talks about shechita with the Polish representatives in the EU Parliament, including the Polish Ambassador to the EU, Marek Prawda, and blamed the controversy on internal politics and jealousy between Europe’s Jewish organizations.
“I condemn with disgust the attempts of interested parties to stop us finishing dealing with the subject exactly at the point where we are winning the complete cooperation of the Polish government,” he said. “These attempts degrade the name of the Jewish communities they represent.”
The League of Polish families was established in 2001, declaring itself a successor to the pre-war National Democracy party, which had an extensive program meant to push Jews out of social and economic life. One of its active members was Roman Giertych’s grandfather, Jędrzej.
Although the League was particularly associated with anti-gay and anti-European policies, several of its members were also blasted for their views on Jews, including senior activist Ryszard Bender who claimed in 2000 that Auschwitz was not a death camp. Giertych’s own father, Maciej, another party member, wrote in 2007 that the Jews segregate themselves and described them as a people who “settle among the rich.”
He was a member of the European Parliament at the time.
The previous year, the party ran a television ad claiming that Polish lives were put at risk in Iraq on behalf of the Jews, complete with pictures of worshipers at the Western Wall. Both the party and Giertych personally were also affiliated with a youth group, All-Polish Youth, which had members who had been documented making Nazi salutes and which shared its name with a pre-war, anti-Semitic youth group.
In 2006 Giertych promised to expel any members of his party who made anti-Semitic statements and, when Ambassador Peleg refused to deal with him, made a pilgrimage to Jedwabne, the site where around 1,600 Jews were burned alive in 1941.
His declaration there that “there is and will be no place for anti-Semitism in Poland” was dismissed by Peleg, who told a news agency, “Our problem was never with Roman Giertych personally, but with his party, which has an anti-Semitic policy.”
Giertych said that it is “significant” that he was the only senior conservative politician to have visited Jedwabne on the 65th anniversary of “this horrible crime.”
“I was accused by my supporters and had many problems, but I said publicly I have to do it,” he told Times of Israel.
His interest in the shechita issue, he claimed, is one of freedom of religion.
“We have a very long tradition of life together with Jews, there is no reason why they decided to change the rules of co-existence… No work was done to properly explain to [the ruling Civic Platform party] that it’s a serious move – a problem of the relationship between Poland and the Jewish minority.”
The quickest solution will still be political, he said.
“To convince the government to convince Parliament to change the law can be done by September. The tribunal proceeds take a very long time.
“We need to manage the case in a few months. I’ve already spoken to people from Civic Platform. I hope there will be a solution soon.”
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Although the Torah speaks of sins passing down to the seventh generation, I did not think that it was characteristic of Modern Jewish Sensibilities to hold a man responsible for the sins of his ancestors.
As a matter of fact, I have had this discussion with my Conservative Jewish relatives when discussing “Substitutionary Atonement”. Their big argument was that G-d would not impute “Original Sin” onto an innocent child because of the sins of Adam and Eve. I tried to explain (poorly, I guess) that it was not the SIN we inherit, but the TENDENCY to sin.
Anyway...”Water Under The Bridge”. I am VERY surprised that this man’s current good deeds are not being accepted because of his FAMILY history. That is not in the spirit of “Tikkun Olam” (Healing the World) which seems to be the prominent feature of Jewish Though these days.
This is just my humble opinion, and not meant to be a Theological Treatise.
Ezekiel 18
New International Version (NIV)
The One Who Sins Will Die
18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
Use this passage next time you have a discussion with your Orthodox friends on the subject.........
Indeed.
Thank You. :-)
Makes sense, it’s the leftist greenies that are pushing for this ban.
Also not that Ezekiel, speaking for G_d, used teh term “Israelites”, not Judah or Israel, especially since the Northern Kingdom of Israel had been destroyed over a hundred years previous by the Assyrians, and Judah was, at the time of Ezekiel, in bondage in Babylon.
This message was for ALL to hear, not just Judah.......
All...yes. Including us wild olive branches. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.