Stalin set the template for the commemoration of the war’s victims: They weren’t Jews or Poles or any other specific nationality or ethnicity; all were “victims of fascism.”

[.] With the new law passed Friday by the Polish parliament, history has come full circle. Seventy-three years since Stalin tried to suppress the story of Auschwitz and deny Polish suffering, it is now the nationalist majority in Polish politics that is trying to enforce historic revisionism and hide the fact that the Polish nation included both victims and collaborators – and that, often, Polish Jews were killed by their neighbors before even seeing a German soldier, or after surviving the camps. The victims of the whitewashing of history are now the perpetrators.

There is no doubt that the term “Polish death camps” is a historical misrepresentation! The extermination camps were set up in Nazi-occupied Poland in order to murder the Jewish people within the framework of the “Final Solution.” However, restrictions on statements by scholars and others regarding the Polish people’s direct or indirect complicity with the crimes committed on their land during the Holocaust are a serious distortion. Yad Vashem will continue to support research aimed at exposing the complex truth regarding the attitude of the Polish population towards the Jews during the Holocaust.

The indifference of so many to the horrors of the Holocaust stems from a lack of proper education, ongoing “black propaganda” and disinformation. The role of propaganda, slander and disinformation is often not given enough emphasis. However, understanding the role of falsehoods and slander gives the message of the Holocaust meaning in daily life, and the need for upholding truth, scriptural morality and the value of life. People of good conscience need to instill courage, resoluteness and honesty to stand up to evil ideologies and their messages of hatred.

[.] his unlikely visit to Davos was meant to be a shift in tone from his populist, protectionist rhetoric. He went so far as to say that he would be willing to re-enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Asian trade agreement he abandoned last year, if it was renegotiated on better terms. That offer came just days after the other 11 members opted to form their own bloc without the United States.

At Davos [.] the word China was never mentioned by Trump. Instead, Trump, who was surrounded by a phalanx of his Wall Street advisers, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, became something of the star of the show by performing what amounted to a volte-face. It was a shrewd move by Trump to position himself as meeting with the globalists he had previously decried. Klaus Schwab, the founder of Davos, defended Trump in the form of decrying “biased interpretations” of him.

Trump gave a good speech that was forthright, intelligent and conciliatory, embracing the world rather than condemning it. The address was extremely well received here at the World Economic Forum by both American business leaders and even non-American attendees, who are overwhelmingly skeptical of Trump overall.

If the speech represents a new approach for the president, it will be a huge step forward. But of course, the problem with Trump is that, by tomorrow morning, he might veer off in an entirely different direction.

Community activists for years have struggled to increase participation by Israelis in activities of Jewish communities, often with otherwise dwindling memberships.

Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands alone are believed to be home to well over 100,000 Israelis.

A 2016 Pew study conducted in Israel found that 40 percent of Israelis identify as secular. Most secular Jews in the Pew study said they see themselves as Israeli first and Jewish second.

Here you have Jews giving up on the Zionist dream for the capital of a country responsible for Jewish genocide. But does it ever occur to Israeli patriots that life has become so difficult in Israel that they could overcome Zionist sentiment to enjoy the easy, peaceful life that has eluded Jews for centuries – even in Berlin?

[.] So rather than beat up on Berlin, which allows state authorities to turn a blind eye to Israel’s own faults, why not find out what Israel’s major cities, particularly Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, can learn from Berlin?

Speaking about Israelis abroad one has to consider at least three separate factors: A. The ego factor: Israelis’ reluctance to accept the fact that anyone would leave such wonderful country for someplace else. B. The fear factor: Israelis’ unfounded dread of dwindling numbers. C. The excellence factor: the fear of the abandonment of the brightest.

On “A” they should just get over. Not everybody is happy in Israel, and people are free to look for their happiness elsewhere.

“B” was an understandable anxiety forty years ago, but not anymore. In the 70 years since its establishment, Israel jumped from 600 thousand Jews to 6 million Jews.

And “C” mostly concerns Israelis whose attachment to the country was lower to begin with – and hence their inclination to join a Jewish community abroad is also relatively weak.

Take one look at any Jewish newspaper or magazine and you’ll find article after article warning students about alleged anti-Semitism on campuses known for having liberal student bodies, like the University of California Berkeley and Oberlin College. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), among other Jewish organizations, publishes annual reports focused on campus activism’s apparent anti-Semitic bent.

The real question is, are all of these people right? Are non-Jewish leftist spaces unwelcoming to Jews? Do Israel politics prevent Jewish students from participating in campus activism?

In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians?” The wording, quite obviously, asks the respondent to make a binary choice between two seemingly exclusive options. (The poll also records the number of those who volunteer an answer of “both” or “neither,” but those options are not offered by the interviewer.)

The poll question is faulty because sympathy for Palestinians should not imply hostility to Israel, nor should sympathy for Israel require disregard for the fate of Palestinians.

In the Atlantic, Cofman Wittes and Shapiro justifiably flag the problem with the recent survey on Israel – from which one concludes that being supportive of Israel is impossible if one is also supportive of the Palestinians. But as they do it, they overlook an important value that such a poll has: it makes a pro-Israel position a concrete statement, rather than a general feel-good statement.

In other words: it is good that (as they point out) Americans are still pro-Israel and see Israel as an ally. Still, a lot of them, mostly Democrats, oppose what Israel considers crucial to its security and well-being. The result of such sentiment was the policy of the Obama administration who claimed to be (generally) pro-Israel, even while it was (specifically) letting the UN Security Council pass a resolution censoring it.

Both classical and left liberals conceive of humans as rights-bearing individuals who should be given as much space as possible to fulfill their dreams. The aim of government is to secure rights. The legitimacy of the system is based on a shared belief in a “social contract” between consenting adults. But this produces a paradox. Because the liberal spirit mechanically destroys inherited customs and local traditions, sometimes in the name of market efficiency and sometimes in the name of individual rights, it creates more room for the expansion of the state, as marketmaker and law-enforcer.

A new report out from GLAAD suggests that there has been something of a retrenchment in comfort with gay equality.

[.] The question is, why? The mainstream media has no other explanation than, well, Trump, and a culture more tolerant of intolerance. That may well be part of it. But no one seems to notice the profound shift in the tone and substance of advocacy for gay equality in recent years, and the radicalization of the movement’s ideology and rhetoric. That is also surely having an impact.

In areas where left-wing opinions contradict scientific evidence, there’s an unfortunate tendency to suggest that such scientific research is morally problematic. This speaks to a common trope on the left: their views aren’t simply accurate, but moral. Though those on the left are quick to point to right-wing scientific illiteracy, they’re often steadfast in their refusal to recognize their own dogma.