There are places on Polish soil that hold a deep significance not only for Poles but also for Jews and many people in Israel. These places are the concentration and extermination camps where German Nazis murdered millions of Jews during World War II.
This goes some way to explaining a recent heated debate about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), should be given safe passage to attend the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on January 27.
The ICC is the international court tasked with prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Last October, it issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli PM and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 47,000 people have been killed in Israel’s military incursion into the enclave, a response to the Hamas attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, that killed 1,200 people.
Israel is not a member of the ICC, but Poland is a founding member and legally bound to execute the warrant.
Safe conduct for Israeli PM
Citing “absolutely extraordinary circumstances,” Polish President Andrzej Duda on January 9 asked Donald Tusk and his government to guarantee safe conduct for Netanyahu should he decide to participate in the event.
In a rare display of unanimity between the government and the president, Donald Tusk’s government passed a resolution supporting Duda’s request the same day.
However, the resolution did not mention Netanyahu by name, which was understandable given that the Israeli prime minister did not actually plan to attend in person — as The Times of Israel confirmed on January 9.
Nevertheless, the decision was met with opposition and protest in Poland.
So, if Netanyahu was not planning to come, why did the Polish government pass the resolution in the first place?
‘Tribute to the Jewish people’
The resolution stated that the guarantee of safety for Israeli representatives was “part of paying tribute to the Jewish people, millions of whose daughters and sons were victims of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Third Reich.”
Tusk himself said that the case was “very delicate.”
“On the one hand,” he said, “we have the verdict of an international tribunal, but on the other, it is absolutely clear to me that any representative of the Israeli authorities should have every right to and sense of security when visiting the Auschwitz camp, especially on the anniversary [of its liberation].”
Critical reactions in Poland
One of the first prominent critics of the government’s decision was a respected Polish judge, Piotr Hofmanski, a former ICC president.
Hofmanski underlined Poland’s unconditional obligation under international law to execute the warrant. However, he stressed that the Polish authorities have not so far broken the law and would only do so if Netanyahu set foot on Polish soil but was not arrested.
The resolution pledging not to arrest him was also met with widespread opposition across the Polish political spectrum. Journalists, experts, bloggers, political commentators, judicial authorities and the opposition — from the far left to the far right — condemned the decision, albeit for different reasons.
The resolution caused uproar among left-wing activists and politicians as well as supporters of the Palestinian cause.
“Not in my name,” posted Adrian Zandberg, leader of the Polish left-wing Razem (Together) party, on X (formerly Twitter).
This attitude was reflected in opinion polls too.
An opinion poll commissioned by Polish media outlet Wirtualna Polska and conducted by United Surveys showed that almost 60% of respondents felt that Poland should arrest the Israeli PM if he attended the Auschwitz commemoration ceremony. Only 24.2% favored guaranteeing Netanyahu safe conduct, and 16.6% were undecided.
Pro-Palestinian activists organized a protest in Warsaw, during which several hundred people chanted “Arrest Netanyahu!” and “The Polish government’s got blood on its hands.”
A group of NGOs, including the initiative East (a Gen-Z organization fighting for social justice and against climate change), Action for Democracy and All-Poland Women’s Strike, also wrote an open letter asking Tusk to withdraw the resolution.
The Polish Supreme Bar Council also appealed to the president and the government to adhere unconditionally to the rule of law and implement it in word and deed.
In an open letter, the council stressed that the rulings of courts and international tribunals must not be viewed as a matter of choice and that the non-execution of the ICC warrant would undermine “the trust of the citizens in the rule of law in Poland” and is dangerous — even if the external security of the country dictates it.
The role of the US
The reference to the external security of the country could have been a response to media reports about another alleged motivation behind the resolution.
The arrest of the head of the Israeli government at the most notorious and symbolic site of the Holocaust would undoubtedly spark an international outcry and trigger a fierce response from the recently inaugurated Donald Trump administration, a strong ally of both Poland and Israel.
Polish media quoted anonymous sources close to the government who claimed that the resolution was mainly aimed at averting the very real risk of a crisis in US-Polish relations right at the start of Donald Trump’s second administration.
Moreover, on January 9, the US House of Representatives passed a bill threatening to impose sanctions against anyone who helps the ICC prosecute US citizens or US allies, which includes Israel.
Did the president set a trap for Donald Tusk?
Whether it was his intention or not, President Duda, due to leave office at the end of his second term in August, created a difficult situation for the government four months ahead of country’s presidential election.
This election could determine whether Prime Minister Tusk will have an ally in the presidential palace and, therefore, a potentially easier path to implementing his campaign promises or face the prospect of working with a second president linked to the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party.
The resolution passed by Tusk and his government might not only cost his ally and preferred presidential candidate, Rafal Trzaskowski, votes, but may have dented Poland’s credibility on the global stage — with the notable exception of its relations with the Trump White House.
Edited by: Aingeal Flanagan
