Jewish Russian Telegraph

Russian Oligarchs Are Coming!

From the Jewish Week:

Russian Oligarch: No ‘Special Treatment’

Leonid Nevzlin, who chairs the Diaspora Museum board, says Putin charges against him are anti-Semitic and unwarranted.
Walter Ruby - Special To The Jewish Week
Russian philanthropist Leonid Nevzlin says he is happy t o be living in Israel

How should the Jewish community, here and in Israel, deal with the growing number of Russian Jewish oligarchs who made a fortune in their homeland and now seek communal acceptance for their generous philanthropic works?

A case in point is Leonid Nevzlin, an ex-Soviet Jew who moved to Israel in 2003 but remains the second largest shareholder in Yukos Oil Company, Russia’s most successful company before the government of President Vladimir Putin took it over and arrested its CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky?

Nevzlin, who last year was No. 386 on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s 500 richest people, with an estimated wealth at $1.1 billion, helped rescue Israel’s financially strapped Beth Hatefutsoth, or Diaspora Museum, through a $1 million donation, and is now chairman of the board of governors of the respected institution. He was here last week for the annual dinner of the American friends and supporters of the museum, and shared the dais with Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and former Tel Aviv Mayor Shlomo Lahat.

While in town, Nevzlin met with philanthropist Michael Steinhardt, World Jewish Congress governing board chairman Israel Singer, and Carole Solomon, chairman of the Board of the Jewish Agency. All of which might have seemed normal enough were it not for the fact that the 45-year-old Nevzlin has been charged over the past two years by the Russian government with a range of crimes, including allegedly commissioning the murder of 10 Russian citizens.

These charges are largely dismissed in the West, including a number of human rights organizations, as crude payback from President Vladimir Putin to Nevzlin for his association with Khodorkovsky and for financing the campaign of Irina Khakamada, a liberal democratic candidate who ran against Putin in the 2004 presidential election. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made clear to Putin during a visit to Israel last spring that Israel believes Nevzlin to be innocent of the charges and would not accede to the Russian Prosecutor General’s request that Nevzlin be extradited to Russia for trial.

Nevzlin, together with two other Russian oligarchs residing in Israel, Vladimir Gusinski and Arkadi Gaidamak, has been reported in the Israeli and international media to be under investigation in a still-pending case involving the alleged laundering of hundreds of millions of dollars through a branch of Bank Hapoalim, Israel’s largest bank. Nevzlin has denied any involvement in the Bank Hapoalim scandal.

So is the real Leonid Nevzlin a selfless philanthropist and committed Zionist, or a flamboyant billionaire still neck deep in Russian politics who may continue to operate in a manner more appropriate to Moscow than Tel Aviv or New York?

One influential person strongly in Nevzlin’s corner is Lantos, founding chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Office, who works closely with Nevzlin on issues related to democratization in Russia. In comments to The Jewish Week, Lantos called Nevzlin “an incredibly decent person” and “as honest as they come”, adding, “To accuse him of murder is about as absurd as my being charged with murder. These are 100 percent political charges.”

Asked about the Bank Hapoalim investigation, Lantos said, “I’d be profoundly surprised and disappointed if any of these charges prove to be valid.”  [link]

Leonid Nevzlin

That's right -- no Special Treatment for Russian billionaires! Who do they think they are?

posted by: jrtelegraph

50-mile Toxic Water Stretch Heading Toward Khabarovsk

BBC reports:

  Pollution fear grips Russian city 

The mayor of Khabarovsk in Russia's far east has urged the city's residents not to be alarmed about the water supply as a toxic spill heads their way.                   
"I'm appealing for the panic to stop," Aleksandr Sokolov said on local TV, after residents emptied the shops of bottled water.                   
                   An 80km (50-mile) stretch of water contaminated with benzene is flowing towards Russia from China.                   
                   Russian officials say the pollution may reach Khabarovsk around 1 December.                                         
The authorities there say they have 70 water tankers ready to supply the city's residents with water if the mains system has to be shut down.
                   "I urge people not to try and profit from the situation and not to whip up anxiety," the mayor said.                 
Benzene can be lethal to humans, even in small doses. The Russian emergencies ministry estimates that the maximum period of heightened toxicity in the Amur river will be two weeks.
                   The toxic water will arrive first in Leninskoye, in the Jewish Autonomous Region, on 27-28 November, the ministry predicts.              
Earlier, a senior Russian official told the BBC that the mains supply of drinking water in Khabarovsk - taken from the Amur - would be cut off for several days.
                   A communications hotline has been set up between Chinese and Russian experts to monitor the benzene spill.                   
Khabarovsk is home to about 650,000 people and the authorities fear 1.5 million people in and around the city will be affected by the pollution.
Oleg Mitvol, deputy head of the Russian environmental monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor, told the BBC that in Khabarovsk "the water supply will be shut off, because the purifying equipment cannot deal with benzene".
He said heating would not be affected but tap water would be cut for a few days and fish from the Amur would also be contaminated.

13 November Explosion at petrochemical plant, Jilin city

21 Nov Water to Harbin city cut off; local government cites mains maintenance

22 Nov State media say water could have been contaminated after the blast

23 Nov Authorities admit very high levels of benzene have been found in the water

                                                            

                           

[link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Political Correctness? Multiculturalism? No, Marxism

(Hat tip -- Joanne Mandel) Unmasking Political Correctness             
                        by William S. Lind        
 

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as "multiculturalism" or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as "multiculturalism."      
Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World   War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war,   the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and   create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it   finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries   did not support it. What had gone wrong?             

Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg   Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the   Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist   class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be   destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, "Who will save us from Western   civilization?" That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture   in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs's   first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary's public schools. He   knew that if he could destroy the West's traditional sexual morals, he would   have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.             

In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established   a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for   Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School,   would become the creator of cultural Marxism.             

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the   Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric   Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important - - had to contradict   Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what   Marx had called society's "superstructure," but an independent and very   important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a   Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the   hated bourgeoisie.             

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of   blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.             

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the     Frankfurt School fled - - and reestablished itself in New York City. There,     it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany     to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented "Critical     Theory." What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution,     starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them     down. It wrote a series of "studies in prejudice," which said that anyone     who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a "racist" or "sexist" of "fascist" - - and is also mentally ill.

Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from   psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the   cultural Marxists want to do something like "normalize" homosexuality, they   do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after   television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white   male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School's key people spent the war years   in Hollywood).

After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to   Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract   works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college   students could read and understand. In his book "Eros and Civilization," he   argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the   pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no   work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, "Make love, not war"). Marcuse   also argued for what he called "liberating tolerance," which he defined as   tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas   coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief "guru" of the   New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into   the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America's state   ideology.             

The future goal of conservatism must include unmasking multiculturalism and   political correctness and tell the American people what they really are:   cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919:   destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made   vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that   political correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of   the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next   conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx   himself.             

  William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the   Free Congress Foundation. The Free Congress Foundation's website,         www.freecongress.org, includes a short book on the history and nature of   cultural Marxism, edited by William S. Lind. It is formatted so you can   print it out as a book and share it with your family and friends.[link]

Let's not make any mistakes --- today's cultural Marxists are as deeply committed to the destruction of this country as their Marxist-Leninist predecessors. This is why an alliance with the radical islam is no problem to them. This is why according to them the rights of enemy combattants need to be protected ahead of rights of victims of terror. As far as millions of Iraqis liberated by the US lead coalition are concerned---for the enlighted elites they are just fodder not worth mentioning.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Learning Torah, Shooting Hizbullah

From Ynetnews:

New recruit becomes hero

IDF Paratrooper David Markovitz shot, killed 4 Hizbullah terrorists who planned to abduct soldier Monday on northern border. Markovitz, recruited only 8 months ago, 'functioned extraordinarily,' commander says.

IDF Paratrooper David Markovitz, who was recruited to the army only eight months ago, became a hero Monday when he killed four Hizbullah terrorists who attempted to abduct a soldier near the border village of Rajar.

Lieutenant Colonel Yaniv Elaluf, commander of the 202 paratroop regiment, told Ynet he tried to reach Markovitz on the phone to tell him how proud he is.

"This is exactly how I expect a troop in the paratroop division to act, and he should be congratulated," he said.
Markovitz joined the army in the framework of the Hesder Yeshiva program in March 2005. He resides in the community of Gamzo, and will celebrate his 21st birthday next week. [link]

It looks like this young man found a path to peace in the Middle East.

Interestingly -- our first Google search on Hesder Yeshiva program brought a statement from ADL accusing Hesder Yeshiva students in the rude treatment of Geneva accords proponents -- that is Beilin and other appeasers.
That is right -- corrupt ADL, which is in a shadowy business of shaking down Jewish elderly by scaring them whith a ghost of non-existent Christian domination are demanding punishment of Hesder Yeshiva students.

We are starting to connect the dots. Are you?

(Hizbullah motorcycle burning, photo IDF)

Here is an interesting link to a Hesder Yeshiva program where Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshivae (Principal of the Yeshiva Torah Studies) talks about the foundation for such military program in Torah:

Although stateless centuries have tended to obscure this fact – hesder has been the traditional Jewish way…what were the milieux of Moshe Rabbenu, of Yehoshua, of David, of Rabbi Akiva, as Hazal (Jewish Sages) conceived and described them, but yeshivot hesder?…The halachic (Jewish law) rationale for hesder rather rests upon a) the simple need for physical survival and b) the fact that military service is often the fullest manifestation of a far broader value: g'milut hasadim (acts of kindness), the empathetic concern for others and action on their behalf…When, as in contemporary Israel, the greatest single hesed (act of kindness) one can perform is helping to defend his fellows' very lives, the implications for yeshiva education should be obvious [link]

One more thing. Russian Jews often ask a question: "Do religious Jews serve in the Israeli Army?"
The answer is --- they do.  You can check with Hizbullah.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Palestinian Authority: No Intentions to Comply with Rafah Agreement

No intentions is a key word here. Not now, not in the future. So what would the Oslo crowd and the Jewish Establishment  wannabe diplomates suggest now? Why, the same thing as usual -- more agreements, more pressure on Israel, more concessions. It worked in the past, right?

From FrontPage Magazine via Israpundit:

The Palestinian Authority has yet to comply with even one agreement they have signed since the Oslo Accord. They have violated the Oslo agreement, Oslo II, and the Road Map. Each agreement required the PA to disarm its terrorists and to empower its “security forces” to protect the safety of Israelis as well as Palestinian Arabs. [link]

On September 13, 1993, after Arafat signed a Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, he appeared on Jordanian TV to explain that the agreement was simply part of the PLO's staged plan for Israel's destruction. "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war," he said in that broadcast, "we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." [link]

Not to break with tradition, the PA announced plans to breach the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, implementation of which was scheduled for November 25. The agreement requires, among other things, that "a liaison office, led by the 3rd party, will receive real-time video and data feed of the activities at Rafah and will meet regularly to review implementation of this agreement, resolve any disputes arising from this agreement, and perform other tasks specified in this agreement."

But PA Director of Borders and Crossings, Salim Abu Safiyyeh, declared on November 17, "that there won't be any live video streams to the Israeli side via the surveillance cameras installed in Rafah terminal," according to a press release posted by the Palestinian National Authority State Information Service. He went on to elaborate that "even the joint control room will not receive these live feeds, and will be only for the presence of the third party that will monitor the borders."

The Rafah Crossing agreement was initiated by the European Union, which is also, the 3rd party assigned to observe its fulfillment. The PA, encouraged by the EU's lack of respect for international law as was demonstrated by its refusal to designate Hizballah as a terrorist organization, declared that it will not honor the agreement.

In October, EU officials met with Hizballah representatives in Lebanon, arguing that such meetings would help to moderate the organization. Today's attacks on Israel by the Hizballah, attest to the complete failure of such diplomacy. [link]

Meanwhile wise men and women from JCRC issued the follwoing statement:

JCRC Commends Bush Administration for Negotiating Rafah Agreement

(Boston, November 16) The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston commends the United States for its renewed efforts to foster peace and cooperation in the Middle East.  We hope that this effort reflects a renewed dedication on the part of the Bush administration to actively pursue a peaceful resolution of Middle East conflict.

We applaud Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s marathon mediation session this week resulting in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to open Gaza border crossings to travel and commerce with agreed upon security precautions acceptable to the Israeli government.  We are hopeful that this agreement will be the first step for the Palestinian Authority to take control of their security and civil affairs.  As the Road Map calls for, asserting their authority must lead to the decommissioning of illegal weapons in the hands of groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas who oppose peace and seek to destroy Israel.

In the meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinian Authority should be commended for their cooperation on the completion of the agreement.  The JCRC joins Israel in her hopes that this agreement will serve as a foundation for continued cooperation and eventual peace in the region. [link]

Let us get the facts straight: Boston Jewish community contributes via CJP a budget of $1.5 million to an organization that actively lobbies to continue bankrupt policy of appeasement of our sworn, mortal enemies, de facto abetting the enemy.

Is it a good use of funds? We are not so sure. Why don't we contribute money to defense of Israel and the Jewish people instead?

Some comments on the JCRC's statement from our readers.
Previous posts on the topic are here and here.

posted by: jrtelegraph

 

Gerry Comments on JRT's Conversation with Sam Kliger

JRT's reader Gerry has the following comments on our conversation with Dr. Sam Kliger:

The main office of AJC may be “a centrist organization” as Sam Kliger says.  But when he says, “In principle, AJC does not take leftist or rightist positions... [but] In reality, the organization represents the views of the majority of its 150,000 members, who historically tend to be liberal” then I start to worry.  Why can’t AJC function according to its principles and stay out of partisan politics?

Sam Kliger goes on to say “one can influence AJC’s positions from within.”  AND one can lose one’s voice on the inside.  Organizations in the US have a very clever method of stifling dissent - bring the dissenter into the organization and then he cannot speak “out-of-school” anymore. 

This is part of what I wrote to David Harris about its Boston office:

The environment of partisanship that infuses the Boston Chapter has been around for a long time.  There is no argument about that; most clear-sighted people agree that in contravention to its designation, the Chapter is determined to act in a partisan way, like a PAC.  The American Red Cross understands non-partisanship, why not AJC? 

Larry Lowenthal’s introduction of a poll regarding Roberts was partisan pure and simple.  Everybody – Democrats and Republicans - agreed that Roberts was a top-notch jurist and those were the facts that AJC should have broadcast to its Jewish base, i.e. that Judge Roberts was eminently qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Genuine leaders don’t follow polls - they shape opinion.

The most humorous part of all this is that many Democratic Senators voted to confirm Judge Roberts.  Is AJC aware how inept it looks being on the losing side of a lopsided 78 to 22 vote?  Does AJC want to be remembered for its opposition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

The Boston Chapter has a leader who seemingly is unable to separate his feelings, opinions, frustrations and biases from his professional demeanor when at work or when representing AJC, a 501c3 organization, to the outside world.  So at minimum there is a disturbing lack of judgment and at most there is a complete inability to understand what the position of executive director demands of its incumbent.

You now face the problem that has mushroomed from a history of neglecting to address failed leadership.  That problem is the harm done to AJC.   As Carl M. Kramer, a third generation American and AJC member said on September 28th in the JRTelegraph, Lowenthal has “compromised the AJC”.

Were you not mortified by the words coming out of Suzi Schuller’s mouth in regard to your problem with the “Russians”?  Schuller is quoted as wondering if the “women picked to be on the board are sincere”. The condescending tone at AJC, Boston, is reprehensible.  Your staff up here does not understand that they need these new board members much more than the Russians need AJC.  Basic judgment is lacking. 

The downside to Mr. Lowenthal’s seventeen years at AJC is that people have 17 years worth of stories and incidents about inappropriate behavior.  Those will come out, one by one and the issue will not go away.  Mark Khesin has this assessment of Lowenthal: “He represents an extreme left-wing bias, the ‘blame America first’ crowd. Because of people like him, I am reluctant to actively support AJC.”

While Mr. Lowenthal was concerned about maintaining good relations with the local Mosque, Boston City Councilor Jerry McDermott asked:  “Why should an organization such as the Islamic Society of Boston be sold a piece of land for a huge discount, when they can afford to spend $22 million building a Mosque?  … The money for the new Mosque has questionable origins. The content of what will be preached at the Mosque is also an area of concern.  We need to investigate this matter more thoroughly.”   Why does not the giveaway of public land to a Mosque in Boston offend Lowenthal’s sense of the separation of church and state?  The lack of logic is astounding and the squandering of resources on politically correct stands is baffling, when Massachusetts is confronted with a rise of 35% in anti-Semitism.

Before 9/11 many people thought that leaders like Larry were harmless enough, however a larger number of people are now questioning past failures and Larry’s role in those and why, for example, he was unable to understand that the Menorah on the Wellesley town common was not the enemy.  As time passes, that very incident begins to represent more and more that which is misguided by AJC and, I’m sorry to say, loathsome to Jews.  [Gerry]

This is why Jewish Russian Telegraph is a true community forum. Thank you, Gerry.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Omri Sharon or Pnina Rosenblum, Hard Choice

It looks like Baby Doc, sorry Baby General, Omri Sharon might be thrown out of Knesset following his conviction.

Omri Sharon, Pnina Rosenblum

Aruttz Sheva reports:

Likud in Post-Sharon Maneuver: Throw Omri Out of the Knesset  

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / 20 Cheshvan 5766

Likud MKs have initiated a move to oust Omri Sharon, son of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from the Knesset. The maneuver might cost Sharon's party the right to government campaign financing.

If Omri is forced to vacate his seat, Ariel Sharon’s new party, Kadima, might fall short of the minimum number of mandates required to attain government funding for its upcoming election campaign.

Grounds for Omri’s ouster could be raised in a Knesset committee that deals with ethical issues. Omri was convicted last week of violating the campaign finance law, and of lying under oath, in a plea bargain arrangement.

The initiative to expel the younger Sharon from the Knesset is expected, however, to run into difficulty in the relevant committee (the Committee of the Knesset). That committee is chaired by MK Roni Bar-on, a Sharon loyalist who has already joined the prime minister’s new party.

The possibility of Omri vacating his seat also raises the issue of his successor. By law, the next person on the Likud’s 2000 electoral list would fill Omri’s seat. That person is Pnina Rosenblum, a former model who put her name on a successful line of women’s make-up.

Rosenblum’s loyalty to the Likud is unclear, and if she decides to run on Sharon’s new list, the entire maneuver could be foiled.

Despite uncertainty over Rosenblum, the possibility of denying Sharon’s new party government campaign funding, worth millions of shekels, might be worth the gambit.

Under Israeli law, Sharon’s party needs to carry a third of the mother party’s MKs, in this case, 14 MKs from the Likud, in order to be eligible for funding.

If Omri succeeds in retaining his Knesset seat, he may be barred from running on his father’s new Knesset list, if a court determines that he committed crimes involving moral turpitude. A judge is expected to rule on that issue before the next elections. [link]

Omri and Papa
Jewish Russian Telegraph supports Pnina Rosenblum in this contest regardless of the  political outcome on purely aestetic grounds.

She is so much easier on the eye. Go Pnina !

posted by: jrtelegraph

 

Sam Kliger, Director of Russian Community Afffairs of AJC, talks to the Jewish Russian Telegraph

Sam Kliger, Director of Russian Community Afffairs of AJC talks with Greg Margolin, Editor and Publisher of the Jewish Russian Telegraph.

Picture courtesy of Sam Kliger. (Sam Kliger and America's favorite mayor, Rudy Giuliani

GM. Sam, tell us about yourself
SK. For the past three years, I have been working with the American Jewish Committee as the Director of Russian Jewish Community Affairs. I started my contacts with AJC, and its director David Harris in 1996. We did a number of projects, but an especially important one was the Russian Leadership Training program. At that time, I was working for NYANA (New York Association for New Americans.) As you know, AJC was established almost 100 years ago (next year the organization will celebrate its centennial anniversary) as a response to the Kishinev pogrom in Russia. The committee was established by German Jews and never had Russian Jews involved in its operation. I felt that the Russian dimension is very important for AJC. I wrote a memo to David Harris and suggested that a new position be created in AJC, with the goal to reach out to the Russian Jews and to address their specific needs. You know how it is – when people come they first focus on their basic needs – housing, schools, jobs. Such needs fall under social services. Once people are settled new needs come up. I would call it – soul searching. Who are we? What is my Jewish identity? -- few of us are synagogue goers, but most have a very strong Jewish connection -- How can I help Jewish people? How can I help Israel? Such questions can not be simply answered by social service agencies.

GM. Why AJC? Why not another American Jewish organization?
SK. I had my previous contacts at AJC. We did a few projects together. I knew leadership there.  Russian Jews were cut off from the Jewish tradition, but the idea of belonging is very strong. The question is -- how to find the way to belong. AJC answered this call. Today Russian Jews comprise between 15 to 20% of the American Jews, in New York it’s 25%, but at the same time we are still separated. The gap should be bridged. We are one tribe – most American Jews emigrated from Russia and East Europe about 100 years ago. We came more recently. AJC is involved in the issues of Jewish identity, politics, and is best positioned to address the intellectual and spiritual hunger of Russian Jews. 

GM. How do you reconcile AJC’s left-wing positions with conservative views of the majority of Russian Jews?
SK. AJC considers itself to be a centrist organization. In principle, AJC does not take leftist or rightist positions. In reality, the organization represents the views of the majority of its 150,000 members, who historically tend to be liberal. At the same time AJC is the publisher of Commentary, a most prominent American conservative, neo-conservative magazine. American Jews have been liberal for the past three generations, starting, probably, with FDR. This is a fact. Russian Jews tend to be more conservative on a number of issues, though it is not that simple. I don’t see a fundamental problem here. AJC is open to any rational opinion, and one can influence AJC’s positions from within.

GM. Can I ask you about your own political views?
SK. You know, when I came to this country, I wrote an article –“Left, Right, Which Side?” In Moscow, in the Soviet Union, I was considered a liberal. I was against big, totalitarian government. I was against government intervention in my life, in my family, in my religious life. I keep the same views here. And guess what?, Here, I’m considered a conservative. If you are against socialism, against government over regulating your business, against excessive taxes, against propaganda, against quotas in the universities, and for the citizens to take care of their own responsibilities – in America you may be considered a conservative.
All Russian dissidents, activists, refusniks – we used to be liberals, now we are conservatives. We have to understand that American Jews have some fears in their genes. These fears were brought by their grandparents from Russia and Eastern Europe. They despise government, army, and the church. The government in Russia was tsarist and anti-Semitic. The Orthodox Church was part of the government and was and remained extremely anti-Semitic. The tsarist army was a very anti-Semitic institution. We came from a very different place and background. We admire the American government, because it is a Democratic institution. We support the American military, and like the concept of volunteer service, where people enlist on their own will to defend their country; we love free Church here – precisely because it is not a part of government and is not an instrument of oppression. This is why we need a dialogue with American Jews.

GM. What do you think about the so-called “Russian-American Cold War in Boston”?
SK. I don’t like the name. I would rather call it a “Russian Boston Tea Party”

GM. This name was invented by the media.
SK. You remember in Boston we spent almost five hours together with the Russian group. I do believe that AJC is the best place for Russian Jews.  I can say this not because I work for the AJC, or not only because I work for it, but because I feel that way.  I and many Russians were involved with AJC long before I started working for them. It is a think-tank which looks 10 –15- 20 years into the future. I believe that this is the best place for the Russian Jewish intellectual elite.  I learned a lot from the Boston group. I learned that there should be a reciprocal experience and mutual education. American Jews would be interested to learn many things about us, things that they don’t know yet. When we lived in the FSU and then came here, a lot of people helped us, but even they know us only superficially. They know little if any about our struggles, about our fears, about things we went through.  But it is our responsibility to educate them, because today we talk to each other. Our generation will be out of the scene in twenty years. It is our responsibility to leave something for the future generations. We have to educate young Jewish Americans, those born in the seventies, eighties. They know very little about us. I learned from the Boston group that our voice needs to be heard, while I was disappointed by the occasional personal attacks. My message is – let’s concentrate on dialogue about the issues. We live in a pluralistic society. We deal with a market place of ideas. You have to be sophisticated in order to make your ideas heard. I learned my lesson from the Boston experience. I believe other people learned their lessons.

GM. What is your message to the Boston Russian Jewish community?
SK. First, I want to congratulate you on the recent Charity Ball. This is a very big and important event full of implications for the whole Russian Jewish community in America. It would take a whole new article to describe the importance of this event. I know that you are considering David Harris as an honoree for your next-year ball. I think this is a good idea.  He contributed a lot to the Soviet Jewish movement.
I also think that you need to do a survey on Russian Jews in Boston, and I would be glad to help with that.  Jewish Russian Telegraph is doing an important job by providing a forum to the community.

GM. Thank you, Sam.
SK. My final message is – we are such a tiny nation; we have to find common ground and be together.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Ralph Peters: How To Lose a War, or Democrats Demand Defeat

Ralph Peters on How to lose a war -- via Instapundit. Rush Limbaugh read this article on the air. His title for the piece is "Democrats Demand Defeat". Very appropriate.

New York Post

HOW TO LOSE A WAR

By RALPH PETERS

QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.

Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.

Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.

As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

And they won't all be conservatives.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer. [link]

This is very similar to the actions of the leftist elite in Israel and the liberal Jewish establishment in this country. Why fight for Jerusalem, we always will have Weston!

posted by: jrtelegraph

Red-Green-Rainbow-Islamo-Facsist Party and ADL

Andy Tarsy of ADL does not see anything anti-Semitic in the Somerville Divestment Project. Now, he begs Chuck Turner not to abuse the Jews in public.

The truth is that Chuck Turner, Ron Francis, Amy Smith --  crazy leftists and vicious anti-Semites, all belong to the same Green-Rainbow party.

According to the Jewish Advocate:

Chuck Turner is the Boston city council's only Massachusetts Green-Rainbow party member.

This summer, the MA GRP in conjunction with the SDP, adopted this Iranian-smack statement, calling for boycott of Israel, the "one-state" solution, and Palestinian "right to resist". 

  Yet, ADL still foolishly insist that Chuck Turner is simply being misinformed on the Middle East issues.  To the contrary,  his bigoted statement represents the position of his party and supporters.  Isn't this the real issue ADL has to face Or the hatred of Left toward Israel is still too much for the ADL to acknowledge?

At their state convention on June 4 and 5, the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party passed these statements:   

Text of Green-Rainbow Party of MA statement on Palestine

 by Green-Rainow Party of MA | divestmentproject@yahoo.com     | 5 June 2005  

The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts, in consonance with its adherence to its Ten Key Values, has the following position on the issue of Palestine. This statement will be submitted to the national party through the International Committee:
   
1. The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts calls for the end of all American military and economic aid to Israel. Additionally, the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts supports the following means to bring pressure to bear on Israel: Divestment initiatives that seek to withdraw institutional investments from Israel state bonds and corporations that do business with Israel; academic boycotts of Israeli academics and academic institutions.
   
2. The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts calls for an ecologically sound commitment to equitably sharing and conserving all water and other natural resources among all peoples of the region.
   
3. The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts supports full implementation of the Right of Return for each Palestinian refugee, which means each Palestinian has the right to choose to return to his or her home and lands. This right is a fundamental human right and is enshrined in international law for all peoples of the world.
   
4. The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts rejects all apartheid-based governmental systems and calls for a secular, democratic governing entity for all people in the geographic region of historic Palestine (today referred to by some people as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza).We support a democratic system with equal rights for all in which the peoples of the region democratically decide their future.
   
5. The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-defense as well as nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation and the Israeli project of forced displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population which has been ongoing since 1948. The right to resist occupation is guaranteed to all peoples of the world by international law.

    http://www.divestmentproject.org/downloads/green_rainbow_statement_2005.pdf

A sligtly sterilized version of this statement was published by the National
Green Party
    http://www.gp.org/greensweek/2005_07_13_gwk.shtml
GREENSWEEK, A national Green bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 8

  The resolution specifically calls for:

a) Right of Return of Palestinians
b) democratic government in all of historic Palestine with equal rights for all
c) Declaration of Israel as an Apartheid State
d) Full Sanctions on Israel (end of military and economic aid as well as divestments and boycotts)
e) supporting the internationally recognized right to resist for Palestinians, and the rights of Palestinians to self-defense.

Aren't we lucky to have ADL as our defender? They spend most of their time scaring elderly Jews with Pat Robertson, they have an opinion on Bill Bennet. The rest of the time they build bridges to the kinds of Chuck Turner. We feel safe.

posted by: jrtelegraph