Staying Jewish after the Holocaust

Nov. 20 2015

Mordechai Ronen [né Markovits] survived Auschwitz, along with his two brothers. After the liberation, the three returned to their hometown in Romania and debated whether to remain Jews:

So there we were, we three brothers, in Dej, Romania, with a serious decision to make. We had just endured unspeakable horrors, all because of our religion. We discussed whether to keep our Jewish identity or abandon it. After all, if these tragedies happened once, they could happen again. There was only one reason why we were targeted for extermination: we were Jews. We knew anti-Semitism had been around for millennia, and in all likelihood, would continue well into the future. All it would take was another obsessed, manipulative dictator for us to be targets once again. . . .

As you might imagine, these were intense conversations for someone of my age. I was only thirteen years old and my brothers were barely into their twenties. We discussed it every day while staying in Dej. We tried to weigh all the pros and cons, considered the history, and our possible futures. We had just escaped from hell and shuddered at the thought that future generations of Markovitses would have to endure similar experiences.

But I could never get the words my father told me out of my head. “Go to Israel,” he said. I just couldn’t betray his trust, his love, and his hopes for me. I just couldn’t stop being Jewish.

So we three brothers decided to be loyal to our heritage, our parents, our religion, and our roots. We feared the risks could be high. But at the end of the day, there really wasn’t any other option. We simply couldn’t live with ourselves unless we were Jewish. And we figured the best place in the world to be Jewish was Israel.

Read more at National Post

More about: Auschwitz, History & Ideas, Holocaust, Israel, Romania

Libya Gave Up Its Nuclear Aspirations Completely. Can Iran Be Induced to Do the Same?

April 18 2025

In 2003, the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, spooked by the American display of might in Iraq, decided to destroy or surrender his entire nuclear program. Informed observers have suggested that the deal he made with the U.S. should serve as a model for any agreement with Iran. Robert Joseph provides some useful background:

Gaddafi had convinced himself that Libya would be next on the U.S. target list after Iraq. There was no reason or need to threaten Libya with bombing as Gaddafi was quick to tell almost every visitor that he did not want to be Saddam Hussein. The images of Saddam being pulled from his spider hole . . . played on his mind.

President Bush’s goal was to have Libya serve as an alternative model to Iraq. Instead of war, proliferators would give up their nuclear programs in exchange for relief from economic and political sanctions.

Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that President Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Limiting enrichment even to low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says.

Iran is not a normal government that observes the rules of international behavior or fair “dealmaking.” This is a regime that relies on regional terror and brutal repression of its citizens to stay in power. It has a long history of using negotiations to expand its nuclear program. Its negotiating tactics are clear: extend the negotiations as long as possible and meet any concession with more demands.

Read more at Washington Times

More about: Iran nuclear program, Iraq war, Libya, U.S. Foreign policy