How to commemorate genocide? Poland knows!
Poland had forgotten the own role in international relations, the own core interests and history, and was simply driven by a momentary political need — to tickle the ego of Donald Trump and his allies.
After the announcement of the International Criminal Court’s decision on Benjamin Netanyahu, it seemed that Poland was taking the side of the international order. Andrzej Szejna, the left-wing deputy foreign minister, has even signed the warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest. At the beginning of December, his colleague Maria Ejchart, deputy justice minister in Donald Tusk’s government, wrote: ‘The essence of international justice is solidarity and shared responsibility’. Yet to everyone’s surprise – including his coalition partners – Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced on 10 January, at the insistence of President Andrzej Duda of the opposite political camp, that Israeli politicians coming to Poland for the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp would be protected and that none of them would be arrested.
Why? It turned out that Poland had forgotten the own role in national relations, the core interests and history, and was simply driven by a momentary political need — to tickle the ego of Donald Trump and his political allies.
It was the education minister was supposed to lead a group of Israeli politicians visiting Poland to mark the 80th anniversary of liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz by the Soviet Army. The Polish government did not expect the delegation to include Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Gaza. In this way, an unnecessary scandal would have been avoided and the celebrations, although taking place in the shadow of the genocide of the Palestinians, would have taken place as planned, as befits a faithful US ally.
Nevertheless, everything changed after the president Andrzej Duda, clearly playing for Trump, wrote a letter published in the media on 10 January.
‘(…) should the incumbent Prime Minister of the State of Israel Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu express his will to personally participate in the ceremonial celebrations of the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the government of the Republic of Poland should guarantee him, in these absolutely exceptional circumstances, an unhindered stay on the territory of our country — despite the arrest warrant’.
— we can read in Andrzej Duda’s appeal.
The move could be read in three ways.
Firstly, Duda might have wanted to avoid a diplomatic scandal. After all, detaining anyone from Israel with the gates of the extermination camp in the background, where the Germans murdered Poles of the Jewish origin faith, as well as those from other European countries, but also all kinds of opposition and partisans, would in itself be diplomatically problematic.
Secondly, he wanted to show that he stands exactly where the as yet unformed government of Donald Trump, which, as we know, has no problem with genocide, would stand. What is more, he is likely to actively support it in one form or another, limiting the already tenuous subjectivity of the Palestinians on the international stage.
However, in his private capacity, he was probably concerned with securing a place for himself in world diplomacy after his presidential retirement, as he has nothing to count on from the Polish government. Just the sort of pettiness that characterises the Polish political ‘class’.
We can read in the resolution that ‘in relation to the celebrations planned for 27 January 2025 to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Former Nazi German Concentration and Death Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau in Oświęcim, together with the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is also celebrated worldwide on this day, the Government of the Republic of Poland declares that it will ensure free and safe access and participation in these celebrations for the highest representatives of the State of Israel’.
The reason for the government’s response can be attributed to the fact that the matter at hand does not constitute a personal decision for Donald Tusk. Rather, it signifies a collective decision of the entire government and all the constituent parties of the coalition.
Speaking to the media, members of the government point out that the resolution applies to a specific day, 27 January, the date of the anniversary of the liberation of the camp. Neither 26 nor 28 January does the resolution apply. Therefore, if Prime Minister Netanyahu arrives in Poland a day earlier or stays a day longer, he still has to expect to be detained. However, is that for sure?
International law experts have no doubt that by providing Netanyahu with protection from arrest, Poland is in breach of agreements to which it is a party. So why this decision? Some politicians from the ruling coalition, speaking to the media under condition of anonimity, hinted at potential sanctions against Poland in the event of the detention of Israeli representatives or the undermining of the alliance with the US.
Was the threat serious? We do not know. There is a talk of signals and not of specific repercussions of such a scenario. After all, the tactic of this government is to communicate through friendly newspapers, a spokesperson has not been appointed so far.
The Polish public, not fond of Israel for several reasons, including attempts to blame Poles for a genocide of which they themselves were victims, responded with widespread indignation to the Prime Minister’s decision, supported by the President’s letter.
Left and right-wingers with no political affiliation to Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s camp joined in the criticism; moreover, many supporters of the liberal camp also felt offended. ‘I feel drenched in the blood of Palestinian children’, “Poland on the side of the strong, not the weak”, “Have we learnt nothing from history?”, “Crawlerness will not give us anything”, “How can anyone take Polish diplomacy seriously?” — these and much stronger comments have taken hold on Polish social media, which, of course, the traditional media have not stammered about while standing where the rationale of polish politicians stands.
And what has stated the ICC? In a communiqué to the Polish Press Agency, court officials said that ‘the Court relies on States (signatories to the Rome Statute) to enforce its decisions’ and that ‘if a State has doubts about cooperating with the ICC, it can consult it’.
Beyond the outrage, the Polish government’s statement also has a factual dimension. In essence, it deprives Poland as a state of the right to call for the arrest of Vladimir Putin and other Russian war criminals.
We are not only failing to fulfil our obligations to the court, but also to other states. It is also difficult to expect for the future that any Polish claims before the ICC could be taken seriously. Settling past war crimes and securing the future? Well…
And this is where the real raison d’être of Poland comes in. As a country whose independence did not come from a large army, a powerful state, but was precisely a matter of the grace of international law and the decisions of those stronger than us, our diplomacy should do everything to maintain the framework of international law. However, it is not doing so, following the path of short-sighted interests and sticking to the USA, according to who now lives in the White House.
A question of great importance in the context of the Polish presidency of the EU, but not only, is: what else will the Polish government decide to do in order to count on the mercy of Donald Trump?
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
