Explore the vast range of titles available.

The thesis, in the generation of the 'founding father' of the West German political science there had been to blameless people who had loaded no burdens on during the time of National Socialism, most recently the example Theodor Eschenburg been questioned. The article analyzes on a broad source base the role that Michael Freund, 1951 appointed to the Chair of Science and History of Politics in Kiel, during the years 1933 to 1945 played. His example suggests to differentiate the image of the founding generation. Simple categorical attributions such as 'charged' or 'entangled' are only limited to education because they do not reflect the contradictory nature of the action during the 'Third Reich' appropriate. Adapted from the source document.

The notion that the \"Founding Fathers\" generation of West German Political Science included irreproachable persons, who did not burden themselves with guilt during National Socialist times, has most recently been questioned by the example of Theodor Eschenburg. Based on extensive sources, the present investigation analyses the role that Michael Freund played between 1933-1945 before he was appointed a professorship for the \"Science and History of Politics\" in Kiel in 1951. His example also suggests that the image of the founding generation should be differentiated. Simple categorical attributions, such as \"burdened\" or \"involved\", are only sufficient enough to enable limited clarification because they do not appropriately reflect the inconsistency of action during the \"Third Reich\". Die These, bei der Generation der „Gründerväter“ der westdeutschen Politikwissenschaft habe es sich um untadelige Personen gehandelt, die während der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus keine Belastungen auf sich geladen hätten, ist zuletzt am Beispiel Theodor Eschenburgs in Frage gestellt worden. Der Beitrag analysiert auf breiter Quellenbasis die Rolle, die Michael Freund, 1951 auf die Professur für Wissenschaft und Geschichte der Politik in Kiel berufen, während der Jahre 1933-1945 gespielt hat. Auch sein Beispiel spricht dafür, das Bild der Gründergeneration zu differenzieren. Einfache kategoriale Zuschreibungen wie „belastet“ oder „verstrickt“ eignen sich aber nur eingeschränkt zur Aufklärung, weil sie die Widersprüchlichkeit des Handelns während des „Dritten Reiches“ nicht angemessen abbilden.

In his commentary, Rainer Eisfeld questions the \"certainty\" of statements about Michael Freund's work in the post-war era and in the Federal Republic. Eisfeld's attempt to verify his hypothesis that Freund was not a convinced democrat with a selective selection of quotes and information is not conclusive. In the first part of this analysis, Eisfeld's questions and findings will be closely examined. In a second step, we will show how a differentiated assessment of Freund in the Federal Republic might be achieved. This contribution then concludes with reflections on further research needs. In this context, an intensive exploration of the “Founding Fathers’” understanding of democracy as well as a discussion about the theoretical and methodological basis of the subject's history are required. In seinem Kommentar stellt Rainer Eisfeld die „Bestimmtheit“ der Aussagen über Michael Freunds Wirken in der Nachkriegszeit und in der Bundesrepublik infrage. Eisfelds Versuch, mit einer selektiven Auswahl von Zitaten und Informationen seine These zu belegen, dass Freund kein überzeugter Demokrat war, gelingt jedoch nicht. Im ersten Teil des Beitrages werden die Fragen und Feststellungen Eisfelds genauer untersucht. Im zweiten Schritt zeigen wir, woran eine differenzierte Beurteilung von Freund in der Bundesrepublik anknüpfen könnte. Der Beitrag schließt mit Überlegungen über den weiteren Forschungsbedarf. Notwendig ist eine intensivere Beschäftigung mit dem Demokratieverständnis der „Gründerväter“, aber auch eine Diskussion über die theoretischen und methodischen Grundlagen der Fachgeschichte.

[Michael Freund] writes that \"just as it did in the Cold War, when it established Radio Free Europe, America should now consider opening a 'Radio Free Gaza' to broadcast accurate news and information to Palestinians.

In a statement released on Tuesday, this merry band of Israeli peaceniks declared almost gleefully that [Abergil]'s photos represent \"a widespread phenomenon\". Asserting that they embody more than the \"ugly behavior of just one person,\" the group insisted that Abergil's deeds were \"the norm\" in the Israel Defense Forces! \"The norm\"? Are these people smoking something? The organization's director, Yishai Menuchin, proclaimed that, \"The horrible pictures demonstrate a norm\" - there's that word again - \"of treating Palestinians like objects instead of human beings - treatment that disregards their feelings as humans and their right to privacy.\"

Last year, MSF was among the harshest critics of Israel's incursion into Gaza, while remaining virtually silent on Palestinian rocket-fire against Israeli civilians. A spring 2009 \"alert\" issued by MSF entitled \"Gaza: A Devastating Disregard for Civilians\" reads as if it was published by the propaganda arm of Hamas, accusing Israel of a \"steamroller attack\" that was indifferent to civilian casualties. One MSF official, Cecile Barbou, was quoted as saying that Gaza had become \"hell,\" and even insisted that Israel had fired on people \"carrying white flags.\" \"In more than 40 years of work in conflict situations,\" Dr. [Marie Pierre Allie] said, apparently with a straight face, \"MSF has rarely faced such levels of violence against civilian populations. Whether in Somalia, the DRC or even Darfur, none of those wars produced so many deaths in so little time.\"

In 1936, Arab rioters assaulted the area's Jewish residents, and during the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan invaded and captured the neighborhood, bringing about a temporary end to the Jewish presence there. The Jordanians allowed Arabs to move into the deserted Jewish residences, effectively creating a cadre of squatters. after the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War, efforts began to correct this historical injustice by restoring the area to its rightful Jewish owners. Sanctioned by the courts and with the backing of police, Jewish families have been moving into homes in the neighborhood for years, in some instances forcing out Arab residents who had no legal or moral right to be there. Instead, they prefer to raise their voices on behalf of the neighborhood's unlawful Arab tenants, rather than championing the rights of its legal Jewish owners, simply because they oppose a Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem.

Mistaking \"Haftara time\" for a form of halftime, it seems that many otherwise dutiful Jews proclaim their own brief intermission. Then there was the reading from the Book of Judges two weeks ago, when Jephthah provided us with a straightforward lesson in hasbara. After the king of Ammon accused Israel of occupying his lands, and demanded that we \"return them in peace,\" Jephthah would not cower, offering instead a spirited defense of the Jewish people's legitimate acquisition of territory. Invoking history, truth and morality, the fearless judge rebutted Israel's critics in a manner that our own Foreign Ministry would do well to emulate. In the coming weeks, with the approach of Tisha Be'av, we will read Jeremiah's rebuke and [Isaiah]'s reprimand of Israel for our sins, followed by seven Haftarot in a row of comfort, consolation and solace. It is a remarkable stretch, one which challenges us to look sharply at ourselves, both individually and collectively, before assuring us of a future gleaming with hope and promise. Taken to heart, these Haftarot can make us better human beings and better Jews.

Some, such as former Meretz minister Ran Cohen, writing on Ynet, argued that the IDF needs to lift the naval blockade of Gaza, even though this would effectively allow an unrestricted flow of weapons to terrorists. Israel, Cohen asserted, simply has no choice, because otherwise \"the world will end up endorsing Hamas.\" Huh? I could hardly believe my ears when the host of a popular late-morning program actually toyed with the idea that in terms of Israel's image, it might have been better had the commandos, rather than the so-called \"Turkish \"peace activists,\" been killed aboard the Gaza flotilla. Does he really think that the life of even one Jewish soldier is worth a slightly less critical headline on CNN? Does this \"matter\"? Of course it does. It is a sign that support for Israel among the American public remains durable. With congressional elections just around the corner, this support has great political and diplomatic value, and undoubtedly serves as a brake on some of the harsher Israel-related instincts of President Barack Obama and his crew.