two yashar koachs--to Bloomy and Olmert

Another opportunity for some appreciations for a couple of public servants who did the right thing this week...Yashar koach, kol ha kavod, congrats, prosdovlayim to Mayor Mike Bloomberg for reaching out to the family of a young black man, Sean Bell, killed in Jamaica, Queens after plaincloths police officers fired 50 rounds at him and two friends who were severely wounded. The shooting was unprovoked and the men unarmed. Bloomberg also met with a group of black leaders and called the police action "unacceptable." What a welcome change from the tough guy, unfeeling and deeply insensitive response of Rudy Guiliani to the shooting of Amadou Diallo and the torture of Abner Louima back in 'Guiliani time'. In those days, African-Americans felt abandoned by a hostile City Hall ready to accept a few black deaths in exchange for a lowered crime rate. I am not a huge Bloomy fan, but this makes me proud to have a Jewish mayor who acts like a mensch and makes all the people of the city feel cared for and protected.


Yashar koach too to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for his agreeing to a cease-fire with the Palestinians, pulling Israeli troops out of Gaza and proposing new negotiations with President Mahmoud Abbas based on land for peace. This wasn't an easy move for Ehud given the ascendancy of hard liners in Israel these days; given continued Qassam fire at Sderot; and given Hamas still in power and no return of POW Shalit. The most important and welome development in this initiative is that Olmert has abandoned the ill-starred unilateral approach and has come back to the understanding that negotiations with the Palestinians are the only way to go. In making this move despite the political risks, Olmert shows he understands reality; the hard-right perscription offers Israelis nothing more than endless bloodshed; the only way out is searching for a political accomodation. I have lots of criticisms of Olmert's performance, but for today at least, my kippah is off to him.

Continued...

Kagan Wows Em at Manhattan Beach Jewish Center

Well, I’m back on my feet and back to this blog. Sorry for disappearing for a week. Here, at last is my coverage of an event from two weeks ago; Ari Kagan being honored at the Manhattan Beach Jewish CenterIf the leaders of the Russian establishment that coalesed this year to narrowly elect Alec Brook-Krasny to the State Legislature thinks that bete noire Ari Kagan is dead and buried politically, they may have another thing coming. Clearly, important elements of South Brooklyn seem to think Kagan has a future. A few weeks ago there was the dedication of the Minsk ghetto stone at Holocaust Memorial Park at which Ari Kagan was one of the key speakers and Brook-Krasny was in the crowd--acknowledged by Kagan and the other speakers, but not invited to speak himself. (Also snubbed in similar fashion was Holocaust Memorial Council director Pauline Bilus, whom many Russians, including Holocaust survivors, believe charges too much for financially-pressed Russians who want to put up a stone for their loved ones who perished in the Holocaust, but that is another story).

Then last week, Ari Kagan was one of three honorees at the 84th Anniversary dinner of the Manhattan Beach Jewish Center, an old institution in the neighborhood which has understood it needs to aggressively reach out to the Russian community to ensure its survival. The shul, which is modern Orthodox, but seemingly with a tolerant atmosphere, now has a Russian-speaking assistant rabbi, Daniel Finkelman and one of the most prominent members of the shul is Alec Teytel, vice president at a branch of HSBC Bank on Kings Highway.

According to synagogue president Rubin Margules, the shul decided to honor Kagan for his journalistic advocacy for increased social services in the area he entered into his bitter election struggle against Brook-Krasny but saw no reason to reconsider giving the honor during the election struggle. “We have nothing against Brook-Krasny but see our event as a way to stimulate Kagan. He has been a good advocate for the Russian and American community as well.” To be sure, the shul is just outside Brook-Krasny’s district, so would not be liable for direct retribution, but still it seems unlikely B-K and his command appreciated what Margulis and the MBJC were up to that night.

For his part, Teytel, who backed Kagan during the campaign, said from the podium that Ari Kagan ran a great campaign against the Democratic machine. He won the Russian vote and came within 100 votes of winning the whole election (within 140 votes, actually, but close enough). He achieved a moral victory by not being a puppet of the machine.”

Even more gratifying for Kagan, fast rising Cong. Anthony Weiner stopped by briefly took the podium and congratulated him on his service to the community and running an impressive campaign. When Kagan made a politically astute impromptu remark in response to Weiner’s words (unfortunately my tape recorder chose to die at that moment so can't give the exact words), Weiner shook his and said in his best Shumeresque Brooklyn schmaltzy style; “Hey, he’s good. He’s good.” The impression left is that Weiner, one of the brightest political lights in the NYC firmament, quite possibly the next mayor of this fair city, sees Kagan as a comer despite his narrow loss. And that’s pretty interesting, given that Nadler, Kruger, Recchia, Nelson, Savino and the Democratic machine went so strongly for B-K. Clearly, Weiner sees it to his advantage to have lines out to both factions in the Russian community.

Continued...

Down with the Flu

which is why I havent yet finished the Ari Kagan piece, but thanks to Alec Teytel for reminding me the event in question took place at the Manhattan Beach Jewish Center instead of Sheepshead Bay Jewish Center as I mistakenly wrote. Anyway, kind readers, please bear with me a few days while I get back on my feet. Plenty more good stuff coming up.

Continued...

Kazakh delegation visits Bukharian community

Here are my thoughts on two events I covered last week, the visit of a high level delegation from Kazkahstan to the Bukharian Jewish community (this posting) and Ari Kagan being honored at Manhattan Beach Jewish Center (next one). Enjoy and Happy Thanksgiving!When a delegation headed by the two top officials from the Kazakhstan Assembly of Nations toured the Bukharian community in Queens last week, the obvious news peg was the Borat movie and I went with gthat theme in order to get the piece published in the Jewish Week. Here is the link to the Jewish Week piece,

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13307

which also included glowing statements from the co-chairman of the Assembly of Nations, Zhumatai Aliyev and Sergei Diachenko who said--Borat to the contrary--that Kazakhstan is a wonderful place for Jews to live and do business, and that the richest man in Kazakhstan, Alexander Mashkevich, head of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, is a Jew, etc. etc. What got cut from the article by editors who as always were intent on saving space was a serious discussion on the close ties being cultivated between the Bukharian community and the Kazakh government. Both Aliyev and Diachenko and the country's ambassador and deputy ambassador to the U.N. Yerzhan Kazykhanov and Barlybay Sadykov spoke proudly of the close relationship between Kazakh president Nursultan Nazerbayev and Israeli-Bukharian billionaire Lev Leviev, who owns a gold mine there and got special dispensation from Nazerbayev to open Jewish schools in the country despite a law forbidding religious schools.

Sadykov noted that a number of Bukharian Jewish leaders have visited Kazakhstan and written and spoken glowingly about the place, including Rafael Nektalov, editor of the weekly Bukharian Times, who seved as an election monitor of last December's election, in which Nazerbayev got 90 percent of the vote in an election that Human Rights Watch said was full of abuses by the government of opposition groups. Nektalov and other Bukharian leaders previously defended Uzbek President/dictator Islam Karimov even after his forces fired on demonstrators in 2004 killing several hundred and even the Bush Administration protested strongly-which led Karimov to kick US forces out of the country. Seeing Karimov's isolation from the West the Bukharian leaders seem to have now moved toward embracing Nazerbayev instead--he has a somewhat better odor than Karimov and besides, billions of dollars from the West are flowing i nto Kazakhstan for oil, natural gas and a panoply of minerals, rather than to Uzbekistan, the homeland of the Bukharians. Indeed, a number of Bukharian Jews have moved to Kazakhstan in recent years because of business opportunities and because the place is safer and less effected by islamic fundamentalism (at least so far).

Sadykov told me that the Kazakh government is interested to preserve and develop our close ties with the Bukharian community, "Because we believe that cultural and economic interaction will benefit both sides.” Sadykov said that while Bukharian Jews are not directly involved in lobbying on behalf of Kazakhstan in Washington, “Those Bukharian Jews who have visited Kazakhstan have reflected (in the media) on what they have seen in our country.”

The visit of the Kazakh delegation to the Queens Gymnasia and the Bukharian Museum was a warm and fuzzy event, and then everyone went to a wonderful midday banquet at the Bukharian Cultural Center at tables groaning with wonderful food and drink in which, I should readily admit, this reporter participated with gusto, even taking the micropphone at one point to make some sentimental comments recalling my first vist with Rafik Nektalov in Samarkand back in 1990. I love Bukharian food culture and dance and like Rafik and many of the other community leaders (mazel tov, by the way, to Aron Aronov for realizing his longstanding dream of opening his magnificent Bukharian Museum, which will preserve for future generations the story of the now nearly finished saga of Bukharian Jewish life in Central Asia).

Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I didnt use this blog to raise the question of why the Bukharian Jews are so anxious to build strategic ties with Central Asian strongmen like Karimov and Nazerbayev and dismiss as irrelevant concerns about the human rights situations in those countries. To be sure, its probably too much ask the Bukharian Jews to be more fastidious about abuses of democracy in Kazakhstan than the Bush Administration, which is happy to woo Nazerbayev despite what Human Rights Watch characterizes as sustained persecution, violations of freedom of expression and freedom of the media, and harassment of non-governmental organizations. harrassment of the non-governmental organizations. But dont our Jewish values raise basic moral questions about embracing authoritarian regimes? And, morals aside, there is also a very pragmatic question--if the emigre Jewish community is so totally identified with dictators, what happens to the Jews left there if and when those strongmen fall?

Its really the same issue we see concerning the ongoing struggle within the larger Russian Jewish community in New York about ties with the Putin regime. Isn't there something troubling about declaring oneself a 'Russian compatriot' under the aegis of an increasingly dictatorial regime which appears to sanction the elimination with extreme prejudice of political opponents like martyred journalist Anna Politskaya and this former FSB guy who just got poisoned? Are we to climb in bed with a bunch of ruthless KGB thugs who are terrifying Russians into obedience?

Let us never forget that Russian and Bukharian Jews came to America seeking democracy and freedom of conscience. Having achieved that freedom, should Jews from the FSU living in America now embrace the new generation of oppressors who succeeded the Soviet ones and deny freedom to those who remain behind in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other states of the FSU? I am ready to grant that there are serious and valid reasons for building such ties, but there are important moral concerns that need to be vetted on an ongoing basis in the Russian community here and should not be swept under the rug amidst the concluding of multi-million dollar business deals and chummy vodka and cognac toasts

Continued...

response to Boris Gorbis from Sajjad

Here is a response to Boris Gorbis' article from Sajjad, presumably a Muslim reader of rubyjewsday. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of Islam who would want to dispute anything Sajjad writes here?The simplicity of Mr. Gorbis comments regarding the worldview of Muslims belies an unfortunate ignorance that is pervasive in the minds of many. This ignorance is guided by political views and agendas rather than a sound knowledge of scriptural sources.

In Islam too all life on earth is seen as sacred. In the Qur'an (the sacred book of Muslims) we read that taking the life of one person is as if all of humanity has been killed while saving a life is as if all of humanity was saved. God himself says that he has made every life sacred in Chapter 17 of the Qur'an. In regards to the personal autonomy and responsibility each person has for his/her own actions Muslims believe that no soul can bear the burden of another.

On the issue of spiritual and physical uncleanliness it would be interesting to find the sources Mr. Gorbis found this information from. From a theological standpoint - nowhere in the Qur'an do we read anything whatsoever about any form of uncleanliness for Non-Muslims. In fact Muslims are taught to live with people of all faiths and creeds in peace and harmony. Nor are Muslims taught to forcibly convert or annihilate anyone. The latter can be drawn from the verses that speak to each life being sacred. The former issue of conversion is amply proven in the verse of the Qur'an which simply says "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Every human being is free to believe as he/she chooses.

In fact, it would be useful in this particular case to keep in mind that the Qur'an mentions the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) more times than it mentions the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The spiritual pedigree of the Children of Israel is the topic of discussion in a large portion of the Qur'an as the tests/successes/trials of the Children of Israel are discussed. Muslims revere the Prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Moses, and so many others (peace be upon them all). With this kind of honor and respect given to them how can Muslims see Jews as unclean in any form?

Continued...

Walter Ruby's response to Boris Gorbis

Dear Boris:
Well, you were certainly on the cutting edge with this piece; ever since you sent it to me a week ago, the issue of whither US-Israel relations in the wake of the Democratic takeover has been all over the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere, it has become one of the principle issues of the moment, as the chattering class (I hate that term but I’m using it anyway) sifts through the rubble of the political earthquake that shook Washington last week. Let me try to address a few of the points you raised in your jousting with your unnamed American Jewish interlocutor.
Boris asked: "Is there a danger the newly resurgent Democrats will abandon Israel?"

The question is not quite, as your interlocutor says, “a silly provocation” but it comes close. The Democratic Party is the Jewish party in America, it has been since the time of Roosevelt, Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel an hour after it was created and 87 percent of Jews voted Democratic in 2006. Democratic members of Congress are just as reflexively pro-Israel as are Republicans, of not more so; virtually all of them take pro-Israel money. With due respect, your idea that “60’s radicals” will now rule the roost in the Democratic Party” is nonsense; while the people in charge of the party may have been impacted by the 60’s, as I certainly and very proudly was, that was 40 years ago and we’ve all moderated a whole lot since. More to the point, Democrats and 60’s people are hardly more partial to Islamic fundamentalism as a philosophy than are hard-line Republicans. After all Islamic fundamentalism is an attack on liberal Western values, not on conservative ones; George Bush, with his anti-abortion, keep women chained to child-rearing, anti-evolution fundamentalist Christian mentality is, in many ways on the same mental wavelength as the ayatollahs. We moral relativist libs don’t buy the Bush-Cheney-Pat Robertson line that this is a war to the death between cosmic good and cosmic evil; we don’t do the ‘good against evil’ thing. Rather, we prefer to seduce mainstream Muslims away from the fundies with promises of sharing in prosperity, free speech and free thinking. Hey it worked with the Soviets… In any case, don’t expect Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama or Barney Frank (especially Barney) to be crawling into bed with the Ahmedinijad anytime soon.

Having said that, Boris, you are on to something by pointing out that in the new political configuration, Israel does not have a blank check to move in a radical right direction—nor should it. 20 years ago, American observers of the Israeli-Arab conflict used to say that U.S. support for Israel was solid as long as Meir Kahane didn’t come to power and carry out the policies he advocated in his speeches and writings; putting all the Arabs on trucks and driving them across the border and creating an anti-democratic, authoritarian halachic state where the penalty for a Jew having sexual relations with a non-Jew would be 39 lashes. I don’t think the characterization of Lieberman as “extreme right” is fair or accurate; I believe he will turn out to be quite pragmatic and to call him a fascist is a short-sighted move that will only further needlessly alienate Russian voters from the liberal side of the ledger, when we can be natural allies on social benefits and civil marriage (to get my full thinking on Lieberman, check out my recent op-ed on “Russians and the Jewish Left” in the previous posts column). Yet the reality is that if Israel took an extreme turn toward radicalism and authoritarianism in its treatment of the Palestinians, of course there would be a price to pay. Israel is already paying a steep price in having alienated much of enlightened world opinion—certainly European opinion--by its insistence on occupying the Palestinians for 40 years and settling the West Bank out from under them. If they keep it up or make it worse, that erosion will accelerate and increasingly affect U.S. public opinion as well. So Israel spits at U.S. and European opinion at its peril. Lieberman’s macho muscle flexing to the contrary, Israel is not strong enough to stand alone against one point whatever billion Muslims.

It should be clear that the Israeli-Arab conflict cannot be separated from the larger crisis roiling the Islamic world. To the extent that Israel undertakes policies that further inflame the region and further radicalizes young Muslims from Marrakech to Malacca, it will negatively impact U.S. interests, and broader Western interests. The inverse, of course, is true as well; the radical U.S. policy of recent years exemplified by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has negatively impacted Israeli interests. Is Israel safer today because the U.S. invaded Iraq, creating a jihadist wave throughout the region and an emboldened Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, who have figured out that a U.S. bogged down in Iraq2 is no threat to them? The recent Lebanon war should put paid to the conceit that a U.S. led ‘War of Civilizations’ is good for Israel and the Jews.

Finally, perpetual grinding war with the Palestinians, as we have seen it played out over the past year or so along the Gaza border is not good for Israel. It does not make Israelis safer, nor does it bring closer the day when Israel becomes the safe “normal” and “fun” country that Olmert and most Israelis, including Russians, would like to see. So in that context, a U.S. policy like the one Clinton pushed, which endeavors mightily to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and presses both sides to make concessions in the interest of a lasting peace is better for Israel than a Bush policy that allows Israelis to dig in their heels and dig themselves deeper into a hopeless and useless occupation of the West Bank that will only get more Israelis killed in the end.

So does Israel have a blank check to be as hard-assed and violent as the Israeli right might want to be vis a vis the Palestinians? No, it does not and thank God for that. Whether or not Lieberman may purport to believe otherwise, the silnaya ruka approach is not good for Israel and will not work. A succession of Israeli leaders since 1967 have tried variations of the above and have only succeeded in eliciting ever-increasing hatred and violence from the Palestinians. Israel needs to end its occupation of the maximum number of Palestinians to the greatest degree possible in exchange for the maximum amount of peace and security. To accomplish that, it needs American help; the kind of help that only an American Administration dedicated to ameliorating the War Between Civilizations, not inflaming it, can provide.

What about Boris Gorbis’ 10 point nightmare scenario for the destruction of Israel—Isn’t it a possibility?

Sure it is and the military planners in the Kiriya in Tel Aviv and in the Pentagon should be doing some serious contingency planning. But with all due respect, it feels a bit overwrought. Even if, God forbid, Ahmedinijad gets the bomb, he isn’t going to attack Tel Aviv with his one puny bomb because he doesn’t want Teheran or the holy city of Qum to be on the receiving end of Israel’s 200 bomb nuclear arsenal. During the Cold War, we and the Soviets had this game called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that prevented either side from unleashing the nukes. A similar scenario will obtain here. The mullahs enjoy wielding power and keeping women in chadors, but to keep doing that, they have to stay alive.

Boris wrote: “Oh no, that is an issue of national priorities; not an individual choice. Our individual system of values has at its core two beliefs: One - every life is sacred and two – subject to the rule of law, each person has autonomy over his or her actions. The Muslim world’s system of values is different – it rests on two symmetrically opposite propositions. First, infidels spread spiritual and physical uncleanliness and, second, Koran obligates every faithful Muslim to stop the infidel’s sacral uncleanliness by conversion or annihilation.”

Boris, no offense, and I could be wrong, but I doubt you’ve met and dialogued with a Muslim in your life. Very few Russian or American Jews have either. So what makes you righties such authorities on the Muslim world’s system of values? Because Steven Emerson told you so? I’ve spent a fair amount of time communicating and dialoguing with Palestinians—mainly Muslims—and not one has ever expressed any issue about my spiritual and or physical uncleanliness, even when they invited me to eat in their homes and not one ever tried to convert or annihilate me. Instead they greeted me as an honored guest and we have moving dialogue and we enjoyed hanging out together.
Earth to Gorbis, Muslims are neither devils nor angels, but are human beings, just like we are. They are not some alien species. Yes, Islamic extremism is a danger, but the way to fight it is to reach out to Muslim moderates as fellow human beings, to treat them with respect and even affection, if warranted. And kol ha kavod to the Minneapolis Jewish World newspaper for endorsing Keith Ellison and rejecting his race-baiting opponent Alan Fine. It is better to have a Muslim in Congress showing young Muslims by example that they have a stake in the system than giving them the message that they are all considered enemies by the country they live in, so they might as well go ahead and start making bombs…

Boris concluded:
He was looking at me from above and said: “We have no fear of inflicting harm on those who threaten us directly but are you saying that we shall hesitate to do so if Israel is attacked?” “That is exactly my point. Now you got it! But it would be the Russian Jews in America who will come forward and…” My voice trailed. We looked at each other as if this were a joke and laughed.

Boris, with due respect, how the hell are the Russian Jews in America going to come forward when the time comes? Will all the hard-ass Russian Jews in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s come forward to volunteer for Tzahal? Russian Jews in America wont come forward any more other American Jews have come forward in past Israeli wars. Instead, they give millions of dollars in emergency fund raising drives and press our government to support Israel. They will do it again, this time with the backing of RAJI as well as AIPAC. Nu, so you think you invented the wheel in terms of pro-Israel advocacy? Meanwhile, Israelis, including Russian born Israelis, will fight and die. Kacha zeh. That’s how it’s always been and will keep on being, unless we all figure out a way to make peace and end the endless cycle of killing and dying. Boris, I don’t see any indication that you have the answer for that one.

Continued...

Test of continued feature

Here's the text that goes before the jump. Here is the complete text.

Continued...

In New Middle East, Tests For An Old Friendship

A first rate analysis piece by Steven Erlanger from the New York Times, mulling over the same issues in Boris Gorbis' piece, namely wither the US-Israel relationship and the ongoing Iran conundrum in the wake of the Democrats' takeover of Congress. I'll have my own say on these issues tomorrow.

Continued...

Would American Jews Abandon Israel?

In the interest of stimulating discussion between Russian and American Jews on burning issues of mutual concern--Israel and American domestic politics among others, I am posting here just such a discussion between Boris Gorbis, a leader of the Russian Jewish community in Los Angeles and an unnamed American Jewish lay leader from the same community.

Boris, with whom I had the pelasure of meeting and talking politics during the recent conference on the global Russian-speaking community at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, obviously comes from a political perspective very different than mine, but the primary point of this forum is to get people of varied opinions, hawkish and dovish, pro-and anti-Bush to mix it up--not to be a Walter Ruby echo chamber (that comes a close second). So here is Boris' piece, uncut and uncensored. I'll have some comments on it in a couple of days,

Would American Jews Abandon Israel?
©By Boris Gorbis
November 2006
“The question is a silly provocation,” said my American Jewish acquaintance, a lay leader and a major contributor. “Of course American Jewry will never abandon Israel.” Then he thought for a moment and added: “unless, Israel falls under the sway of irresponsible politicians, like your Lieberman, but even then…” He hesitated, lost in a number of imponderables and then asked me: “Well, what do you mean ‘abandon Israel?”
I was ready: “This means being unwilling or unable to prevent the destruction of the State of Israel. And you just identified the first component of this doomsday scenario by suggesting that someone like Lieberman might be so frightening to American Jews that they would consider giving up on the country altogether.”
Indeed, thinking that Israel might cease to exist is a mental taboo for most people, even those who daily swear to support and protect it. But there has been no guarantee of any state’s survival. At one time or another in this past century of uneasy memory, the world allowed for the disappearance of Ethiopia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Tibet, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Why not Israel?
And so I proceeded to lay out reasons ‘why’ when’ and ‘how’ this might happen. My first argument was this:
“You are a life-long Democrat and your party just took over the Congress. Like your family, the majority of American Jews are embedded in the Democratic Party. While they pride themselves on making major financial contributions, the actual number of Jews is not enough to affect the party run today by many of the 60’s radicals. The party is quickly growing to the left because its ranks are swelled by anti-war and anti-globalization crowds, by the young and the disenfranchised.”
He interrupted: “There are many factions in the party and it always returns to the center. Besides, look at the number of Jewish representatives just elected.”
“Yes, I noticed that the Jewish mainstream in Minnesota worked hard to defeat a Jewish candidate for Congress, Alan Fine because he was a Republican and to elect Keith Ellison, because he was a Muslim with a past rooted in the Nation of Islam. I read that Fine’s own brother, Robert, called Ellison and pledged his support – all on account of his anti-war …”
I was interrupted: “First, Keith is not a Democrat per se; he is a candidate of Democratic Farmer’s and Worker’s party. He is a responsible person and the Democrats welcome his election. In fact we are proud that we could put our sectarian differences aside and support him. “
“And I am putting my sectarian differences with you aside in support of Borat Sagdiyev for Congress” I said irreverently.
I must have cringed and my vis-a vis noticed this. “Look,” he said. “I am personally a social conservative but our current policies are a complete fiasco. That is why voters elected people who can get us out of the mess.”
I asked: “Would you agree that the ‘Scoop’ Jackson-style Democrats are marginalized and have no or little power. They are out of the picture and when American Jews will discover that they cannot move the party back they will have no choice but to move with the party in all matters including Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Iranian conflict. Rest assured that this movement would involve a significant bent towards acceptance of anti-Israeli planks in your party platform.”
“Look at the signs,” I continued. “The creation of a lobbying group by George Soros in counterbalance to AIPAC is a case in point. If before, the Jewish community spoke with one powerful voice when it came to Israel, the likes of George Soros and Chaim Saban are likely to advance a different set of arguments to whoever will be running the United States, come 2008.”
This angered my acquaintance who met Mr. Soros personally. “What is wrong with that?” he bellowed. “We are a free society and anyone can express their views. We are the world’s best known marketplace of ideas.”
“Well,” I retorted, “all it takes is one anti-Israel resolution in the UN which the US fails to prevent or, even worse, votes for it and the end is near.”
“Nonsense!” interrupted my opponent. “Sheer nonsense!” he repeated for emphasis and said: “First, no UN resolution critical of Israel is going to put an end to Israel. Second, why would you think that the US might support it?”
Now came the time for my second and third arguments. “American society is divided on Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. But the majority of American Jews vehemently and unswervingly dislikes George W. Bush.”.
“The man is a moron and a liar.” responded my acquaintance.
“And you probably can’t even force yourself to listen to him,” I ventured.
“Right on, pal” he said, betraying his college vernacular.
“Well, this President happens to be the greatest and the strongest supporter of Israel”
“So what! This imbecile is destroying the country. Just look what he does to our civil liberties!”
To my pride I maintained a long pause and then said slowly: “I cannot argue with you about what you think of the President. My liberties are in good shape, no worse than under Kennedy or Johnson,”
“Worse than under Nixon!” he said.
“I doubt it, but the point we just made is that in the eyes of anyone claiming Presidency after George W, support for Israel no longer translates into support by American Jews. The lesson we taught all political contenders is that it is not essential to back Israel to be liked by Jews and vice-versa.”
This my opponent could not concede easily: “Not true and Nixon is a case in point. If Israel seeks peace with its neighbors and continues to live up to its international obligations anyone who hates or even dislikes it would not be tolerated in our society. His chances of election would be ‘nil’”.
“I am sure you are aware that you have just made a conditional statement.” I said in a tone of voice my father employs when he wants to annoy me. “What if Israel cannot make peace with its neighbors? What if it becomes aware of an imminent attack and launches a pre-emptive strike as it did in 1967? What if it cannot put its international obligations above its duty to survive, then what?”
“What do you think will happen?” he asked in response. I had no problem to shift gears:
“Well, I do not think necessarily that an Israel-hater would come to power. The next President of the United States is likely to be swept into office on the wave of anti-war sentiments.”
“So you agree that the Iraq war was a huge blunder, that Bush opened a Pandora box and cannot even close it?” rejoiced my acquaintance.
“Actually, I hate metaphors,” I said, “but I think he opened up a big bag of puss and it will take time before it drains and heals, but my view is not widely accepted. Anyways, the point is that in the eyes of many, Israel was either a reason for the war or a beneficiary of this war. Viscerally, these people connect Israel with an increasingly unpopular military action and are ready to blame it for anything that goes slowly or goes wrong in Iraq.”
“That it just too tenuous!” he exclaimed.
“I am not saying that the connection exists for all. But many, including Jewish anti-war establishment figures, would not hesitate to condemn Israel if a new conflict flares up in the Middle East.”
“Israel is not a sacred cow to be above criticism” declared my opponent.
“Right you are, but a cow that is not sacred can be slaughtered.” I took a cheap shot and decided to draw back a bit:
“Remember, we are only discussing a juxtaposition of events that would produce this unthinkable result. It does not have to happen. The very purpose of our dialogue is to see what ‘may’ take place. Just bear with me for a moment. Here are the ten components that might; I repeat might result in Israel being wiped out:
Israel elects a strong leader, like Lieberman, who is maligned and marginalized in the US media and whom the left loves to hate. American Jews openly voice their disagreement with tactics and policies of the new Israeli government.
US elects a popular anti-war crusader as President whose position of pulling out of Iraq and the Middle East is overwhelmingly supported by the ruling Democratic party.
Sensing this growing weakness and dissatisfaction and mindful of the ever strong US reliance on foreign oil, one of the actors in the Middle East, say Iran, or Syria, directly or by proxy begins to prepare for a decisive victory over the “Zionist entity” and its “occupation army.”
Any debate on the future of the Middle East is in the context of the best national interests of the US which, as before, require an uninterrupted supply of oil from the Middle East. Israel receives no support from the majority of American Jews,
In spite of all this, Israel reacts decisively to the threat of war. UN condemns any preemptive strikes with US voting in favor. Economic and/or arms embargo is imposed on Israel immediately.
It is clear that there shall be no re-supply of Israel.
Whether Israel does anything or not, one of the parties, say Iran, launches a massive rocket attack on Israel using its offensive conventional weapons. The nuclear shield, if it exists, merely serves as a deterrent to prevent retaliatory strike.
The UN deliberates with little or no real input from the US delegation. Anti-war demonstrations roll through the US in response to some groups calling for US military involvement to save the Jewish State.
Israeli major industrial and military centers are destroyed. Cities lie in ruins.
Israel capitulates.

“These are just vectors of possibilities,” I said, seeing that my opponent’s patience was running thin.
He admonished me: “Every American President since Truman had to deal with the threat of the Arab oil embargo because of Israel. Every American President resisted this pressure and protected Israel’s right to exist” he said.” There is nothing that the Arabs could do.”
“I wish you were right in the future tense” I responded. “In the past there always was a strong American-Jewish diaspora in America with access to the centers of power which clearly saw centrality of Israel as an important part of its identity. Not so now.”
“What kind of BS is that?” he said in a hurt tone of voice. “Look at our system of self governance. Look at our network of federations. In less than a week I shall be leading a panel at the General Assembly. Hundreds of delegates from all over are going to come. Our community is strong as is our support for Israel.”
“Strong we are, but the disconnect between American Jews and Israeli Jews is greater than ever before and growing wider. First, there is no reluctance to demonize Israeli politics on the part of the left-leaning Jewry and second, the young generation of Jewish kids couldn’t care less. ” I replied.
“Wait a minute!” protested my acquaintance. “The kids are all pro-Israel. Look at the rallies we had when Israeli soldiers were captured by Hamas and Hezbollah. Most of the faces were under 25.”
“How many young Jews in America would you say consider Israel an important part of their identity?” I asked.
“I think a lot, maybe 70, maybe even 80 percent” he ventured a guess.
“That is not true. A recent analysis by American Jewish Committee summarized findings of surveys of 1, 5 million young Americans (20’s to 30s) and it found that Israel was not a central component in their identity, placing 11th out of 15 components. The upshot is that the younger the people, the less sympathy they feel for Israel.”
“I have not heard of this study,” said my acquaintance shaking his head.
“Well, just check with the AJC and while you are at it, look into the study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research that found that for American college and university faculty members US is the second most dangerous country in the world (North Korea is the first).
“I can’t blame them, to be quite honest”: my opponent smiled, possible indicating that he was not prepared to defend this point.
I charged: “Really! Do you also see US as more dangerous to world stability than Iran (Iran comes close third)?”
“No, of course not,” admitted my opponent. I was right – he thought it was a hyperbole.
“This is not a rhetorical exaggeration,” I said, “the study showed that nearly half of those teaching humanities (46%) and more than a third teaching social sciences believe that US is a greater threat to world peace than any other country (again trailing North Korea). About 12 % of faculty perceives Israel as a great threat to international stability – more than Syria (7%) or Russia (4%).
“That’s not good.” commented my acquaintance.
“It is rather bad.” I agreed. “Add the two and two together and you get a startling figure of American students being educated by 41 percent of teachers who believe that the United States and Israel combined are the most dangerous countries in the world. Would you support such an alliance if that was what you were taught?”
My opponent hesitated then said: “Figures lie and besides, this is no proof of how students would vote, or what they would do in the event tensions escalate in the Middle East?” He looked at me with obvious distaste and continued: “I see that what you are trying to convince me of is an immediate disaster but I see none of this happening to the extent that you do. Worst case scenario – Israel gets bloodied a bit but the country will survive. You are just an alarmist.”
“Again,” I repeated, thinking how Kissinger waited to warn arrogant Israelis about the impending attack on Yom Kippur until it was almost too late, – and said: “all we are talking are trends. The process is glacial until it shapes up. Besides, you are not responding to the specifics, and platitudes do not help one who wants to see the shape of things to come. Let us take a look at yet another dimension.”
“Which is what?” he asked, possibly losing interest.
“We must look at the fundamental belief system of those who confront Israel and the US”
“I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that we would abandon Israel over Arab oil?”
“Oh no, that is an issue of national priorities; not an individual choice. Our individual system of values has at its core two beliefs: One - every life is sacred and two – subject to the rule of law, each person has autonomy over his or her actions. The Muslim world’s system of values is different – it rests on two symmetrically opposite propositions. First, infidels spread spiritual and physical uncleanliness and, second, Koran obligates every faithful Muslim to stop the infidel’s sacral uncleanliness by conversion or annihilation.”
My interlocutor regained his interest: “I understand, but this applies to only a radical fringe of Muslims -- the bulk of Muslim population consists of decent and normal people. They want peace for themselves and their children no less than we do. We should be orienting ourselves towards them – not towards the fanatics. Calling these people Islamo-fascists as your beloved President did recently did not help”
I felt that we were moving away from the main theme but I had to finish what I started: “Your normal ‘decent’ Muslims voted for Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza. Look for the normal European Muslim and tell me you believe his interests are the same as yours. Your position is at odds with evidence. As far as children are concerned, do you remember Golda Meir’s famous statement that peace would come to the Middle East only when Arabs would love their children more than they hated the Jews?”
“Yes, of course, I know the aphorism, but the Israelis should be more responsible contributors to the peace process. Diplomacy, even individual kindness is a much better alternative than air raids and cluster bombs that are still maiming kids in Lebanon.” he retorted.
I was getting angry with my inability to bring up what seemed to be the core issue. “And you believe that there is symmetry between our values and the Islamic moral universe?”
“Of course, I do. What is more, I believe that fundamentally it is the right wing in Israeli politics, like this Lieberman fellow, who wishes to show that it is not so.”
I took the bait: “So, it is Lieberman who invented intifada and Shahids and it is he and those like him who brought upon Israel a barrage of suicide bombers and it is he who insists that Middle East should be free of Jews…”
He waived his hands at me. “Stop, stop! I never said such outrageous things and you know it. What I am saying is that the peace process is preferable to war. Israel is on the war path and there is a better way.”
“So the old Latin maxim: ‘Para pacem para bellum’ no longer applies?
“My Latin is rusty. Please remind me what it says?”
“It says that if you wish for peace, you prepare for war, and we, American Jews, would not force America to go to war for Israel, especially in support of a right-wing Israeli government. The question will not be put before us in black and white but we shall continuously signal our unwillingness to do so.”
There was silence and so I continued: “In any event, your belief that the entire world accepts the notions of sanctity of life and freedom of person and conscience is just plain wrong. The Muslim world as we know it rejects these notions. Most importantly, my point is this: any confrontation puts these conflicting values to test.”
My opponent waived me away: “I cannot agree with your pessimism. Democratic values are strong, much stronger than you concede. The notions of freedom, of tolerance, of human dignity – these are powerful weapons in our arsenal. Please do not underestimate them.”
I paused to make my point: “I am not. Our humanistic values will prevail: Americans, Jews and non-Jews, shall act strategically to avoid or limit a possibility of bloodshed and casualties. Given other factors we spoke about, we shall support every non-violent strategy. The Muslims shall act to prevail and thus inflict the greatest human loss without fear, restraint or hesitation. Just look at the deadly score between Sunnis and Shiites. ”
“This does not mean ‘abandoning Israel’ he reacted. “We choose the path of promoting peace. Why are you bringing this up as a calamity?” asked my opponent getting up.
“Because this is exactly what it will be. You just cannot accept the fact that there are no benefits of peace for the other side.” I stayed put and continued watching him pace.
“Don’t you think that everyone knows this and plans accordingly?” I continued. “Don’t you realize that when strategic planners in Lebanon, Syria or Iran analyze our responses they know the limits of what we shall do if they take up on Israel? They will know that American Jews will go with the mainstream and that mainstream America will not dare to suffer or to inflict casualties on them in order to protect Israel.”
He was looking at me from above and said: “We have no fear of inflicting harm on those who threaten us directly but are you saying that we shall hesitate to do so if Israel is attacked?”
“That is exactly my point. Now you got it! But it would be the Russian Jews in America who will come forward and…” My voice trailed. We looked at each other as if this were a joke and laughed.

Continued...

An Appreciation of Valery Wajnberg

Reading over all I have written about the Brook-Krasny-Kagan contest for the heart and soul of the Russian-speaking community over the past six months, I should acknowledge here that due in part to my lifelong instinctive sympathy for the ‘little guy’ and the underdog—in this case for the elderly, poor and lower middle class voters who so ardently backed Kagan—I tended to overlook and not to give enough space in my coverage to the hard work and determination the so-called ‘Russian establishment’ put into getting one of their own into the State Assembly. To some extent I have participated in a sometimes unfair demonization of the Russian establishment, which, as it happens, includes some first-rate people, a number of whom have treated me more indulgently than I probably deserved.

Take Valery Wajnberg, editor-in-chief of Novoye Russkoye Slovo. I have known Valery and his charming wife Lilly (director of the UJA-Federation Russian Division) for years, and both have always treated me with great kindness, even when I have written things that may have caused them pain. Valery, who worked his way up from literally pushing a broom at the newspaper after his arrival in New York from Lvov and Poland as a just off the boat greenhorn back in the early 1960’s; took over the paper over after the death of former editor Andrey Sedich; making it much more Jewish-friendly and deepened its coverage in other respects. Despite what I and other skeptics wrote a couple of years ago, Wajnberg managed to maintain editorial control of the paper even after selling it to Kiev-based oligarch Vadim Rabinovich.

Wajnberg has always had time to give me insightful, often humorous, quotations for my scribblings here, in the Jewish Week and the Daily News. In other words, he seems to me a mensch; someone whose politics are distant from my own (of course, that is true of just about most people in the Russian community), but who is civilized and open-minded.

In past years, Wajnberg has often offered ironic and sometimes cynical comments on the long, bitter and frustrating efforts to elect a Russian candidate, arguing on occasions in years past that it didn’t matter much if an assemblyman or city council member was a Russian-speaker or not as long as he or she provided quality services to the Russian-speaking community. But this year, Wajnberg got strongly behind Brook-Krasny (some would argue that his closeness to the candidate prevented fair news coverage in the paper of the B-K-Kagan race), and when I interviewed him at the B-K victory the other night, I could feel his sense of excitement, achievement and pride, as he exulted in what he called “a historic achievement” for the Russian community. Wajnberg believes there is a possibility to elect “several more Russians” in coming years to both City Council and State Assembly seats in south Brooklyn, and held forth an olive branch to Ari Kagan, saying Brook-Krasny’s bitter rival “can certainly play a role in all of this, as he proved he is a capable politician/ What he has to do now is learn how to play on the team.”

Anticipating possible future battles in the future between Russian-speaking candidates with some of the incumbent politicians who represent large Russian constituencies who chose to back B-K this time—people like Michael Nelson and Steve Cymbrowitz, Wajnberg predicted, “The American political establishment will try to split the community,” but argued Russian candidates can win if the community stays united. Wajnberg pointed out that he himself is a Republican with political connection within the GOP hierarchy as high as the White House, but supported Democrat Brook-Krasny and will support other quality Russian candidates, regardless of party affiliation.

But what about the perception of some in the Kagan camp, especially poor and elderly Russian speakers, that Wajnberg and other prominent and wealthy B-K supporters have not done enough to address social problems in the community—lack of affordable housing, crime, immigration problems and paltry social service benefits, and are mainly out for themselves? Wajnberg responded, “We can better address those problems if we have someone speaking on behalf of the community in the chambers of power. Now we have elected such a person, and that is a great victory for all members of our community. The election of Alec Brook-Krasny is only the beginning. We have built a solid power base and need now to use it to serve the community. I am going to be there to help in that effort.”

Continued...

comments from readers

(the first comment is from Anatoly Belilovsky, a superb pediatrician in Brighton Beach and an old friend)

Anatoly has left a new comment on your post "Brook-Krasny to Power and An Appeal to Ari Kagan": Hi Walter,This is your long-lost friend Anatoly, coming back from disgust with politics to a hope that not all is yet lost. As of now, my Princeton classmate Stu Rabner '82 is AG of NJ, Elliot Spitzer '81 is, of course, Governor elect, my old politics professor Fouad Ajami is a major influence on US politics -- hence, the hope -- and, of course, there's Alex. Could the good guys have their innings after all? I have a blog of my own, www.belilovskypediatrics.com/news/, on which any an all non-spam comments would be welcome.Best,AB


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Slava Bogu! Slava Demokratia!": There is no question that people have spoken -- and the huge margins of victory of Spitzer and Clinton in New York tell me that many Republicans in our state voted AGAINST the possibility of their sons or daughters dying in Iraq, or for want of a stem cell transplant. Now all they need is a plan.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "more in sorrow than in anger--Israeli cluster bombs litter south Lebanese landscape": A great article, Walter!

Continued...

Brook-Krasny to Power and An Appeal to Ari Kagan

I start with the link to my article in the Jewish Week concerning Alec Brook-Krasny's historic election victory Tuesday night as the first Russian-speaker elected to statewide office.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13245

some random thoughts not contained in above article:

The politically active Russian-speaking community remains sharply split between so-called 'establishment' Russians, who back B-K, and the self-styled 'narod' (in Hebrew 'amcha'), aka, the people--the poorer, less assimilated and elderly core of Brighton Beach and surrounding areas that strongly supported Ari Kagan. The BK crowd is not only the wealthy 'Russian elite'--the Wajnbergs, Frenkels, Sapirs, Kislins, Branovans and Shigliks of this world, but also many younger striving people who perceive that the Russian communtiy has to integrate into encroaching American reality even while retaining its distinctive identity, who are building professional careers in their own lives, and who appreciated B-K as a 'gramatnye' (educated, well-spoken) type who knows how to operate in the larger American world, who built solid ties both to the political powers that be (Nadler, Recchia, the Brooklyn machine) and to the American Jewish macherocracy.

The Kagan group manifests a lot of anger--as much against the Russian elite as against American society as a whole. A lot of them feel cut off and left behind--including a large bloc of retired people forced to subsist in their golden years in sub-standard often crime ridden apartment buildings on miserably small sustenance packages of of SSI, welfare and food stamps. Others are middle aged and younger people who have fallen through the cracks and haven't found their way in America. All of these people feel the Russian establishment has essentially abandoned them--feathering their own nests while some elderly Russians have literally been forced to pick through dumpsters to feed themselves while waiting for miniscule SSI checks which are immediately swallowed up to pay the rent. That elderly people who struggled and sacrificed their entire lives--whether American or Russian-born are placed in such a position is prosta steed y pazor (a terrible shame) and an indictment of an oft-callous society which lets its weakest members collapse in the dust while the rich get richer. Its the fault of decades of fealty by American society to a blind policy of social Darwinism, and hardly the fault of the Russian establishment, although to the extent that many of them have eagerly embraced Republicanism, they have done their small part to perpetuate it.

If B-K wants to win over this population, much of which is now against him, and ensure his reelection in two years, he will have to acheive some results, however modest, to show that he is working to allieviate the miserable conditions afflicting too many in the 46th Assembly District--especially the elderly--which means first and foremost, doing something to increase the stock of affordable housing in the district, but also, improving police protection, helping people to deal with immigration problems and making sure they receive the social benefits due to them, while succoring those who fall through the cracks, and literally face eviction and a life on the streets. That is exactly what B-K has promised to do in an interview with me the day before the election. If he can accomplish even a fraction of this, his problem with the Russian 'narod' will be greatly allieviated; otherwise he knows there is Ari Kagan waiting in the wings to try again to chase him from power two years hence.

As to Ari, he ran a superb campaign based on people-power that came within 150 votes in the primary of shocking the political establishment and defeating a candidate who was endorsed by the entire Brooklyn political establishment. Nevertheless, Kagan has shown some rough spots, especially with his seemingly childish behavior since the primary, refusing to acknowledge defeat for over a month and then refusing to endorse B-K, leaving ample grounds for suspicion that he was encouraging his followers by winks and nods to vote for B-K's Republican opponent, Patricia Laudano. Kagan denies adamantly doing any such thing, but Laudano's camp acknowledges paying for a flyer distrubted in buildings with heavy Russain population signed by a Kagan supporter named Gregory Piller urging people to vote for Laudano, because Laudano had promised to stay in office for only one term and after that Kagan "would have the backing of her supporters the next time around." Kagan adamantly denies making any deal with Laudano, but the suspicion lingers that he was inclined to try to prevent the election of the first Russian candidate in an effort to settle accounts with Brook-Krasny.

As it turned out, the Piller leaflet and several other, much dirtier ones that smeared B-K and many of his supporters in nasty personal terms, failed to have much political effect, as the vast majority of Kagan's supporters ended up voting for B-K over Laudano. In the end, they held their nose and voted for the Russian candidate on the ballot, even though he was not the one who won their hearts. But if Kagan wants to take the next step forward in what is potentially a promising political career, he will have to move away now from the politics of resentment and slash and burn and rebuild ties with the Russian and Democratic political establishments he so strongly excoriated over the past six months.

One way for Ari Kagan to start the process of healing would to denounce loudly and clearly on Russian radio, tv and in Vecherniye New York some of the anonymous leaflets, mostly written in Russian and widely distributed in the last days of the campaign praising him and excoriating Krasny and his allies in unacceptable personal terms. Specifically one of the leaflets savagely attacked Fira Stukelman, a Holocaust survivor, activist in survivor and veterans groups, and consumate political activist, a former close ally of Kagan's who angered many other members of the politically active Russian pensioners, when she broke with Kagan and campaigned actively and effectively for Brook-Krasny. The leaflet charges incredibly and unforgivably that Fira "dreams that zhidi (kikes) should be killed in concentration camps and regrets that the Nazis didnt do that."

When I asked Kagan about that leaflet and others just before the election, he said he has no idea who the authors of these things are, and that he hasn't condemned these and earlier defamatory leaflets because "it wouldnt do much good, because these people would go on doing it anyway." Yet he mused to me that "Yes, maybe this time I will say something against this. Maybe I will say something after the election." OK, nu, Ari, so get out there and denounce this now. However angry you may be at Fira Stukelman, she doesnt deserve to be attacked so savagely and shamefully. Fira is a strong and proud Jew, who has fought to keep memory of the Holocaust alive. The anonymous authors of these disgusting leaflets are your supporters; if you want a political future it is incumbent on you now to do the right thing and make clear you will have nothing to0 do with such poison.

Ari, a lot of ugly and unfair charges were thrown around during the campaign, including the one by Brook-Krasny that you were tied to the KGB, because you attended the Lvov Military and Political School as a young man. Certainly, you were sinned against as well as sinning. But the hate-mongering should stop now, and you can make an important contribution to that process be denouncing the evil charge against Fira Stukelman and appealing to your supporters to cease and desist from any more such ugly leaflets. Now is the time for reconciliation. You have made an important contribution this year as a defender of the weak and powerless in the community, but your future political viability depends on you making clear that ,as far as you are concerned, henceforth political discourse within the Russian and broader communities must be a debate over ideas, without recourse to personal defamation and destruction.

Continued...

Slava Bogu! Slava Demokratia!

It is amazing how only 24 hours after a democratic revolution, such as the one that occured across the U.S. last night, the fallout, including the President's contrite news conference and dumping of Rumsfeld already has the feel of inevitability. The country was clearly sick to death of the Bush-Cheney-Rove extreme right agenda that had so clearly blighted hopes for a decent future and thanks to the quirky, highly imperfect, seemingly anachronistic mechanism called democratic elections, finally got a chance to speak its mind and deal the extremists a hard blow. In the wake of that head banging wake up call, even much of the GOP is acknowledging they needed a mid-course correction toward the center, and Bush the great polarizer, is talking as though all he wanted all along was just to bring us together.

The humbling of the extreme right crew, together with their puerile, well funded cheerleaders on right-wing talk radio and Fox News, was deeply satisfying, as was the Democrats' last minute, seemingly impossible capturing of the Senate. What now? Pelosi et al, are correct to be conciliatory, but she and the Democratic leadership will have to be very astute not to get sucked into playing the enabling role for a continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. The invasion was an ill-conceived disaster from the start and needs to end as quickly as possible so as to cease to serve as an incitement causing more and more Muslims to turn to the fundamentalists as the only answer. Bush says failure in Iraq is not an option. But the policy has already failed and chasing illusory victory for years more, killing many thousands more in the process, will only make things very much worse.

For its part, the American Jewish community, which voted overwhelmingly Democrat, should absorb the lessons of the Iraq debacle and break with the predominantly Jewish neo-con crowd; the Wolfowitzs', Pereles, Feiths, etc, who were convinced they could use U.S. power to reorder the Islamic world and ensure an ongoing U.S. hegemony that, incidentally, would be good for Israel and the Jews. Most American Jews now understand that the neocon agenda and the Bush agenda is bad for the Jews--a fundamentalist and zealous Christian America is an unhealthy place in which to raise Jewish kids and acts like the invasion of Iraq only serve to strengthen Iran and other radical Muslim states and increase the threat against Israel. The best hope for Israel is a policy accenting reconciliation and striving to find a path to peace with the Palestinians. Its excrutiatingly hard, but the alternative policy of confrontation that Bush and Sharon=Olmert have followed since 9-11, only leads to more hatred, more killing and more young Muslims becoming suicide bombers.

One hopes that in the coming weeks and months more Russian Jews in the U.S. and Israel will begin to shake the illusion that the existential threat to Israel can best be resolved with a healthy dose of silnaya ruka. The war of civilizations leads only to mutual destruction. I'll continue to do what I can to make that case in the Russian community, and hopefully, America's full-throated repudiation of Bush will cause more and more Russian Jews to begin to rethink the premise that the best thing for the Jews is to make alliance with the extreme right.
Slava demokratia!

Continued...

Vote Democratic to put some control on Bush

On the very eve of the election, I urge readers of rubyjewsday, whereever they may be, to vote Democratic tomorrow in Senate and House races, and place a counterbalance on Bush, Cheney and their band of radical rightists who have taken America in wrong and dangerous directions on so many issues--Iraq, the Middle East, arms control (they want to dispense with it, except when it comes to Iran), their rejectionism of America as a responsible member of the international community, their fill-throated rape of the environment, especially their theological madness in rejecting the consensus of the scientific community and insisting nothing can or should be done about global warming. That is the image that upsets me more than any other about Bush; like Nero, fidlding while the world liuterally burns up, thereby denying our children and grandchildren of a livable world.

The Bushies are Christian right crazies who want to do away with the separation of church and state, who want to drive women back to life-threatening back-alley abortions, who question evolution--what century is this, anyway, the 21st or the 19th--yet here we are in the thrall of this bunch of Christian Taliban who want to turn America into a fundamentalist Christian state. They pose cynically as guardians of the moral order, even as so many of them use their positions of power in blatantly corrupt ways and even as they milk the system to make the obscenely rich even richer. There is their ongoing 'starving of the government' in order to give tax cuts to the rich, and finally, their attempted snuffing out of American democracy itself; the attack on our civil liberties and basic constitutional rights, the denial of due process to prisoners, who can now be held for as long as the Bushies desire without access to legal support, the condoing, even encouragement of torture--all of which does not weaken the Islamic fundamentalists we are fighting, but strenghtens them.

In short, this has been the worst U.S. Administration since this reporter came to political consciousness at the age of 10 in 1960; worse in some ways even than Richard Nixon, who at least accepted that basic social services for the less fortunate needed to be maintained. No, electing a Democratic House or Senate will not be a magic panacea and the Democrats are all over the map and do not present a coherent message on Iraq and other key issues, but at least they would put a serious check on the power of this arrogant, authoritarian bunch intent on blindly pursuing a set of disastrous policies that not only threaten decent and humane government in America, but the very perpetuation of life on earth itself.

In the not too distant future, our children, struggling to survive in a world beset by disastrous global warming and the crashing of basic species, like most of the fish in the oceans will look back and shake their heads that such a bunch of madmen were allowed to take control of the levers of power and insitute a set of policies that has left America so much worse off than when they began. Six short years, and look how far down the road to hell they have taken us. The damage is immense, and will take decades to repair, but first we have to say a collective NO to this bunch of tuggish ideologues. The chance to take that step and take back our country starts tommorrow. Friends, druzya, chaverim, go to the polls and say 'No' to Bush.

Continued...

Two New Published Pieces--Dedication of the Minsk Ghetto Stone+ Op-Ed on Russians and The Jewish Left

Hot off the presses, my two most recent pieces
--coverage of the dedication of the commemorative stone for the victims of the Minsk Ghetto (NY Daily News)
http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/468255p-394076c.html

and an op-ed piece from the New Jersey Jewish News as to why my friends on the Israeli and Jewish left are clueless in terms of dealing with Russian Jews. Example A: Calling Avigdor Lieberman a "racist" for suggesting the same policy advocated by yefe nefesh Yossi Beillin a decade ago.


Why the Left should engage a voice of Israel’s ‘Russians’

Walter Ruby,a veteran reporter for American and Israeli newspapers, lives in Millburn.

Who is afraid of Avigdor Lieberman? In recent days, there has been a virtual cacophony of voices in Israel and the American Jewish community expressing alarm over the imminent ascension of Lieberman, a 48-year-old former immigrant from Moldova who heads the 11-Knesset-member Yisrael Beiteinu Party, to a powerful position in the Israeli cabinet. Those presently shreying gevalt include the left wing of the Labor Party, including many Israeli Arabs, Ha’aretz, The New York Times, and dovish American Jewish bodies like American for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum.
In short, the detractors of Lieberman are exactly the sort of folks with whom I usually find myself in agreement. Yet as someone who covers the global Russian Jewish community for American Jewish media and just returned from a conference at Bar-Ilan University that focused on the condition of Russian Jews in Israel, I believe the expressions of alarm over Lieberman on the Left are overwrought.
Moreover, in their very tone-deafness toward Russian Jewish sensibilities, they will only serve to accentuate the drift of Lieberman and the million-strong Russian Jewish community in Israel he represents to the kind of hard-line positions vis-a-vis the Arabs that the authors of those statements so passionately declaim.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons for concern over the news that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, profoundly weakened by the debacle of the second Lebanon War, chose to bring Lieberman into the cabinet in order to stabilize his shaky coalition. Lieberman has indeed said some things that are dangerous for democracy. Several months ago, for example, he said that Arab Knesset members who meet with members of Hamas “are cooperating with the enemy” and should be tried for treason and executed like the Nazi leaders after World War II. Those comments were inexcusable demagoguery and incitement to violence that threaten the uneasy social compact between Israeli Jews and the 20 percent of Israel’s population that is Arab.
Similarly, neither Lieberman nor any other Israeli leader has the right to “transfer” to Palestinian sovereignty areas within Israel’s 1967 borders heavily populated by Israeli Arabs, as he proposed doing earlier this year, without the agreement of the residents of those areas. These residents were, after all, citizens of the State of Israel long before Lieberman himself arrived in Israel from the Soviet Union in 1978.
Nevertheless, the idea of transferring Umm al-Fahm and the so-called Arab Triangle to a Palestinian state in exchange for Israel retaining Jewish settlement blocs inside the West Bank as part of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement did not originate with Lieberman. The idea was first raised in an academic study by Joseph Alpher in 1994, and was later advocated by dovish MKs like Yossi Beilin and Efraim Sneh.
To be sure, Beilin’s primary motivation in making the proposal during the post-Oslo period was to compensate Palestinians for the loss of West Bank settlement blocs. Lieberman, by contrast, openly acknowledges that he supports the idea because he wants to pare down Israel’s Arab population as much as possible. Yet the effect of Beilin’s proposal and that of Lieberman would be exactly the same. As far as I recall, nobody accused either Beilin or Sneh of being a “racist” or “fascist” as they did Lieberman.
Russian-speaking immigrants and their children are quick to notice the difference in those responses. This population already feels discriminated against and prevented from advancing in fields like academia, hi-tech, and the arts by native Israelis, especially the secular Ashkenazi elite that supports peace with the Palestinians. Russian-speaking Israelis are a proud people who manifest a strong connection to Russian and European culture. To dismiss as racist or fascist the political leader of a group of people who endured grinding anti-Semitism for many decades and once contributed mightily to the military defeat of Nazism amounts to a deeply hurtful conversation stopper that strongly reinforces Russians’ sense of being despised by the Israeli mainstream. It also causes them to tune out the political message of liberal Israelis, a group with whom the Russians potentially have much in common.
Indeed, the so-called “transfer” proposal is hardly the only area in which there is overlap between Lieberman, usually referred to in the media as an “ultra-rightist,” and much of the Israeli Left. Lieberman and his party differ from the rest of the Israeli Right in advocating civil marriage, a high-priority item for the Russian-speaking population — an estimated one third of which is not Jewish according to rabbinic law. In addition, Lieberman fought the introduction of “welfare-to-work” laws by the Sharon government when he served as the Minister of Public Infrastructure, in defense of an immigrant constituency beset by considerable poverty and unemployment.
Ze’ev Khanin, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan who chaired the conference on global Russian Jewry, said, “Lieberman’s popularity is growing because he comes across as a tough guy who is to the right of (Likud Party chair Benjamin) Netanyahu, yet in reality he is a pragmatist who is far less ideological than Bibi.”
Massoud Eghbarieh, an Israeli Arab scholar at Bet Berl, the Labor Party think tank, has known Lieberman since the two attended Hebrew University together 25 years ago. Eghbarieh is convinced Lieberman will move to the center of the political spectrum as he moves closer to power. Eghbarieh says he takes “very seriously” recent assurances by Lieberman to him that Israeli Arabs deserve to be treated as “full citizens” of the State of Israel.
In short, instead of treating the ascension of Lieberman to the cabinet as a cause for lamentation, dovish Israelis and American Jews should engage the new minister and the community he represents on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Yes, Russian speakers often embrace simplistic positions on issues of war and peace, but those opinions are largely informed by their life experience as a despised minority in the Soviet Union and consequent conviction that only a “strong hand” will strike fear into the hearts of those they see as their new persecutors, the Arabs. Instead of placing anathemas on Lieberman and the Russians, the Israel peace camp needs to engage them and help them to understand how the situation in Israel is different from the one they experienced in Russia and why hard-liners like Menachem Begin, Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon all mellowed and made territorial concessions upon coming to power.
The stakes in all of this could hardly be greater. Unless the peace camp ceases its demonization of Lieberman and the Russian-speaking community and figures out a way to work fruitfully with them, the present right-wing domination of Israeli politics will likely continue for decades, and hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation may all but evaporate.
Comment Print Subscribe Webmaster

Continued...

Attempt at Jewish-Muslim Dialogue Goes Awry Over Israel-Palestine issue

Please read my cover story in the new issue of the Jewish Week about an attempt last week at Muslim-Jewish dialogue on the East Side of Manhattan, which as the title said, hit an unbreachable wall.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13219

I am on deadline at the moment, but will have more to say about this in my next post on rubyjewsday.

Continued...