Jewish Russian Telegraph

Dovid Margolin: Meaning of Shavuos

Dovid Margolin:

This Thursday night begins the holiday of Shavuos. Shavuos commemorates G-ds giving of the Torah to us, the Jewish people. Every year, on Shavuos, G-d gifts us the Torah anew. Just as the Jewish people stood as one unified nation at the foot of Mt. Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments, so to it is very important that all Jewish men, women, and children should gather in synagogue on Friday, the first day of Shavuos, and hear the reading of the Ten Commandments.

The Torah was given on Mt. Sinai, and Mt. Sinai is located in the middle of a desert. It is explained that a desert was chosen to be the place of the giving of the Torah to show that the same way a desert is ownerless and free, the Torah too has no owner and belongs equally to every single Jew. If a Jew chooses to learn the Torah, then it becomes his.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe presents a question. Why was the Torah given in a desolate desert? The desert part we explained, but why such a harsh place where the Jews had no clothing, no food, and lacked even water? Their clothing grew on their backs, they ate the Manna that descended from heaven, and their water came from a rock. Why did the Torah have to be given in such a place?

We know that every idea that is written about in the Torah translates into a practical lesson for us in our time. This lesson must correspond to all of the small details pertaining to the physical attributes of the desert, as is described in the Torah. So what is the explanation?

The Rebbe explains that when it comes to taking out a book and learning Torah, all sorts of things block a persons way and disturb his learning of Torah. When the time comes for a businessman (or any layman) to set aside time during his day for the express purpose of learning Torah, the businessman demurs. He will explain that learning Torah is not his mission; his mission, he says, is to give Tzedaka and be involved with communal affairs, but not to learn Torah.

This businessman already understands that he must infuse his day with meaning and with holiness. He already separates himself from his work in the middle of the day to pray Mincha [the middle prayer, which is described as being a very special prayer because of the fact that it forces a person to stop what he is doing and pray before sunset]. Additionally he will point out that there is an order that must be followed. Let him first complete the service of Tzedaka and Mincha, and then maybe he will be ready to set aside time to consistently study the Torah. He sees the importance of studying, but there is no reason to rush him, it will all come in due time.

Then there is someone who actually does study Torah all day long such as a Rabbi, a teacher, and a yeshiva student. But he too will have his complaints and necessary prerequisites. First he must sleep properly so that he may have a clear head. Then he must eat properly so that he may understand the fine points of the discussion. Then after all of this, he will finally be ready to sit down and learn Torah.

The Rebbe explains that it was in answer to all of the above mentioned excuses, that the Torah was given in a desert. Because when it comes to the Torah, we must completely rely upon G-d Almighty. The Jewish people were led out of the Egyptian slavery and led straight into a desert where nothing grew. They relied upon and put their faith in G-d, and in turn their clothing, food, and water was all miraculously provided. For us, now, it is too the same thing. We cannot sit and make calculations, but we must go at it and set aside specific times for learning Torah. When we will study Torah and trust in G-d, then we will be blessed both physically and spiritually, and we will merit the coming of Moshiach, may it be now.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Two-State Solution: Seven False Assumptions

Ynetnews (via Linkage by Martin Kramer):

The American mistake

US administration’s view on conflict based on seven false assumptions
Giora Eiland

For some weeks now, commentators have been telling us that if only Israel agrees to accept the US position regarding the two-state solution, it would be possible to progress quickly and secure a final-status agreement.

This hypothesis is premised on seven assumptions, all of which are false. Had the US administration undertaken a real assessment and examined the fundamental assumptions underlining the solution, it may have reached different conclusions.

So what are the seven false assumptions?

1. “Establishing a Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders is the essence of the Palestinians’ national aspiration.” It is true that the Palestinians wish to get rid of the Israeli occupation, yet a small and divided state whose establishment would force them to agree to end the conflict and their demands is the Palestinians’ nightmare, rather than their national aspiration. They could have secured such state three times in the past (in 1937, 1947, and 2000,) yet three times they rejected the offer with horror. What is the basis for assuming that the Palestinian ethos, which is premised on a “desire for justice,” need for revenge,” recognition of their victimhood, and mostly the “right of return” has changed all of a sudden?

2. “The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions is bridgeable.” Reality is different. The maximum an Israeli government (any Israeli government) can offer the Palestinians and still survive politically is far from the minimum that a Palestinian government (any Palestinian government) would be able to accept and survive politically.

3. “Egypt and Jordan want to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved, and therefore they will be a contributing factor.” Reality is the different: Both Egypt and Jordan prefer the status quo to continue, whereby the conflict continues and they can continue to blame Israel. As long as the conflict exists, Egypt has the ultimate excuse for all domestic and regional troubles. Meanwhile, for the Jordanians, a neighboring Palestinian state - likely under Hamas’ rule - would mark the end of the Hashemite Kingdom.

4. “A final-status agreement would bring stability and security to the region.” The exact opposite is true. There is no chance that the small and divided Palestinian state would be viable. The frustration to be created by such situation (certainly in Gaza,) with Israel being stripped of “defensible borders, is an obvious foundation for instability.

5. “At this time we have an opportunity that must not be missed.” If we compare the situation that prevails today to the situation that prevailed in 2000, we reach the clear conclusion that the chance of securing an agreement back then was much greater than it is currently, yet it didn’t happen. Is it possible at this time to reach an agreement in Judea and Samaria, not to mention Gaza, when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement?

6. Progress on the Palestinian front is vital in order to enlist the support of Arab states against Iran.” How are these two issues related? Arab states (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia) have a supreme interest in curbing Iran, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

7. “There’s only one solution to the conflict.” What is this assumption based on? When was a thorough examination that looked into the range of possibilities been undertaken last, here or in the US? Alternate solutions, whereby the Palestinian are no longer under Israel’s control, can be presented easily.

Regrettably, and irrespective of the manner in which the American assessment was undertaken, the Obama administration’s conclusions are clear-cut. The chances of securing a final-status agreement on the basis of the two-state formula and implementing it successfully are not much greater than the prospects in 1993 (Oslo,) 2000 (Camp David,) and 2007 (Annapolis.)

We should hope that the almost assured failure would not have negative ramifications on other fronts, such as the effort to curb Iran or Israel-US ties. [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Facebook gets $200m from Russian group

Financial Times:

By David Gelles in San Francisco

Published: May 26 2009 18:01 | Last updated: May 26 2009 23:44

Facebook said on Tuesday it had accepted a $200m investment from Digital Sky Technologies, a private Russian internet investment group, valuing the fast growing social network’s preferred stock at $10bn.

The investment, which represents a 1.96 per cent equity stake, gives Facebook an additional cash cushion, but the $10bn valuation is a come down.

Just a year and a half ago, Microsoft invested $240m on similar terms, but valued Facebook’s preferred stock at $15bn. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, acknowledged on Tuesday that this investment came at the “peak of the market”.

Facebook has been fielding offers from investors recently, although reports have put valuations between $6bn and $8bn. While DST’s preferred shares will grant it additional privileges, the $10bn valuation is significantly higher than others seemed willing to grant.

DST also indicated it planned to purchase at least $100m of Facebook common stock from existing shareholders, allowing current and former employees to receive a pay-out.

Details of this plan are expected in the coming months, and the valuation DST gives Facebook’s common stock may put a more accurate valuation on the company.

DST will not receive a seat on Facebook’s board as part of either investment.

“They’ve had to go far afield for this capital,” said Ray Valdes, an analyst at Gartner. “I’m sure there are investors closer to home that would be happy to invest in Facebook, but not at that valuation.”

DST, set up in 2005, has about 30 investments in Russia and eastern Europe. They include Mail.ru, Russia’s largest internet portal. DST sites account for 70 per cent of page views on the Russian language internet.

Facebook is growing rapidly and recently recorded 200m active users. However, much of its growth is coming internationally, where the company is harder-pressed to monetise traffic. At the same time, capital costs are growing as the company pays to accommodate increased activity on the site.

“Facebook has been successful in gaining users but that has had the unfortunate result that it increases costs,” said Mr Valdes.

Nonetheless, Facebook is projecting substantial revenue growth this year. Mr Zuckerberg said on Tuesday that Facebook had been profitable before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation for five quarters. [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

'Ted' Book Reveals Power Struggle Within Kennedy Clan

Newsmax:

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:22 PM

By: Ronald Kessler

As Sen. Edward M. Kennedy lay on a hospital bed after being stricken with a brain tumor, a fight for power began within the Kennedy clan, Edward Klein writes in his book “Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died,” which hits bookstores this week.

In particular, Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, and his nephew Joe Kennedy II vied over who was in charge, foreshadowing an expected hand-to-hand tussle over which one of them might run for Ted’s Senate seat after he dies, according to Klein’s inside account.

“I spoke to several people who were in the hospital room where Ted was recuperating from his seizure before he had his brain operation,” Klein tells Newsmax.

They say that the senator’s wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and former Massachusetts Congressman Joseph Kennedy II “are vying with each other behind the scenes over who’s going to be the head of the family and who is going to run for Ted’s seat in Massachusetts when he dies,” Klein says. “Vicki is very unpopular within the family, because she’s seen as an interloper by many of the cousins. She is not liked within the family, and Joe Jr. has a reputation of being a very blustery, arrogant guy, so he’s not too popular, either. And these two rather unpopular figures are lining up support within the family and outside the family for the donnybrook that is likely to come after Ted dies, between Vicki and Joe Jr.”

[Editor’s Note: "Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died," Go here now.]

A former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine, Klein is the author of a number of best-selling New York Times biographies. Arguably Klein's best work, “Ted Kennedy” is a masterful account, providing fly-on-the wall perspective into one of America’s most powerful and secretive families.

Klein reminds us of Kennedy’s womanizing and drinking days and his shameful failure to call the police or fire department to try to save the life of Mary Jo Kopechne when he drunkenly drove with her into Pouncha Pond at Chappaquiddick. Because of a local coverup, no autopsy was performed.

But according to John Farrar, a rescue squad scuba diver who recovered Kopechne’s body, the Kennedy staffer had positioned herself to gasp the last bit of air in the car. She died of lack of oxygen and might have lived for several hours after the accident, Farrar says. Yet Kennedy failed to notify police until more than nine hours after the accident. In the meantime, he tried to get his cousin Joe Gargan to say he had been driving.

But in a book remarkable for its fairness, Klein also shows how Kennedy became determined to be an effective politician while never giving up his principles, and why he now is considered the most effective member of the Senate.

“It is no exaggeration to say that his stamp has been on every piece of progressive legislation for the last 40 years, starting with the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, up to and including No Child Left Behind and beyond,” Klein says.

“Everyone in the Senate will tell you that his staff is considered not only the largest staff in the Senate, because he pays for a number of the people out of his own pocket, but also the best staff in the Senate,” Klein says. “He is enormously popular among all the members of the Senate, including some of the most conservative members, because he does not personalize his politics.”

Kennedy understands that the Senate is “essentially a boys’ club — although it now has girls — and if you really want to be effective, you need to be able to build coalitions, be able to call upon friends on both sides of the aisle,” Klein says. “I’ve spoken to many conservative members of the Senate who have only very good things to say about him — even though they totally disagree with his politics.”

Kennedy’s days as a “dissolute, boozy, woman-abusing person have been over with since he married Vicki in 1992,” Klein observes.

Among the revelations in the book, Klein discloses what was behind Caroline Kennedy’s decision to withdraw from consideration to be appointed to the Senate seat Hillary Clinton vacated.

“It was rumored that she dropped out for personal reasons, and the gossip was that it had something to do with either her having an extramarital affair, or her husband having an extramarital affair, or her having tax problems,” Klein says. “It turns out that none of that is true. The reason she dropped out was because of the pressure brought to bear on her from her three grown children.”

According to Klein, “Caroline had expected that once she expressed an interest in this seat, that it would be hers almost automatically. And when that didn’t happen, and when the governor of New York state left her twisting in the wind, she went out on listening tour à la Hillary Clinton and quite frankly made a fool of herself.”

Caroline has “none of the public panache of her father or her Uncle Teddy or Bobby,” Klein says. “She is simply an inept public speaker who in one very famous interview used the words ‘you know’ more than 30 times.”

During her public appearances, it became apparent that “she wasn’t knowledgeable about New York state politics, about New York state’s problems, and she had no policy prescriptions for fixing them,” Klein says. “So she was pilloried in the press, which is the first time this has ever happened to her, ever in her entire life, because she’s always been the sainted daughter of the sainted, assassinated president.”

In part, Caroline had sought the seat to please her uncle Ted, who wanted a Kennedy in the Senate after he died. The reaction to her public appearances so upset her that she turned into “kind of a mean person that nobody had ever seen before,” Klein says.

In effect, the children did an “intervention,” Klein says, resulting in her withdrawing her name from consideration.

In part because Ted Kennedy has had a longer public life, he has achieved more than either of his brothers, John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, Klein notes.

“I think he’s the greatest legislator since Lyndon Johnson,” Klein says. “He has a lot of Lyndon Johnson’s qualities; he understands how the institution works, and it’s not just simply by rules. You can know all the rules and still not be a great senator. Most of the rules, the real rules, are the unspoken, unwritten rules: how to build support for what you’re trying to achieve.”

Regardless of your politics, “Ted Kennedy” is a fascinating read about one of the most consequential men of our time.[link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Dimitriy Salita Beats Raul Munoz In Desert

TheSweetScience.com:

Dimitriy Salita Beats Raul Munoz In Desert
By David A. Avila

PRIMM, NEVADA-New York’s Dimitriy “Star of David” Salita shook out the dust of inactivity and found himself staring at the physically bigger Kansas steak sized Raul Munoz who had designs of an upset on his plate on Sunday.

Rusty or not it was Salita’s night.

Ranked number one junior welterweight in the world by the WBA, though anxious to get back in the ring, Salita didn’t let anxiety overcome intelligence when fighting Munoz (20-12-1, 15 KOs) at Buffalo Bills Casino and Resort in the boxing and mixed martial arts promotion staged by Roy Jones Jr’s company Square Ring Promotions and Primm Valley Casino Resorts.

Despite some jaw chattering punches that seemed to wobble the bigger Munoz, the ever thinking Salita never succumbed to wildness and charted out a convincing 10-round victory.

“He came to fight,” Salita (30-0-1, 16 KOs) said of Munoz. “I could feel his size.” 
The New York boxer was the quicker fighter using combinations and moving from side to side. He was very aggressive despite fighting a much bigger opponent. Some stiff left jabs and right hands by Munoz caused a welt on the side of Salita’s left eye in the very first round but it didn’t stop the aggressiveness.
Salita opened up with some stinging body punches in the second round but a counter left hook and right hand by Munoz snapped the New York fighter’s head back. Once more Salita returned to the body and seemed to hurt Munoz. Several quick combinations and uppercuts scored for Salita.
Munoz scored with a big left hook in the third round but Salita’s jaw withstood the challenge. More and more combinations by Salita mixed with plenty of body shots scored heavy for him. Munoz was able to land more than one blow at a time.

In the fourth round after referee Jay Nady warned Salita about low blows, the tide turned as Munoz scored more and more with combinations. Salita seemed a little confused about not being allowed to go downstairs and took some blows in the round. It was still a close round.

“I was worried the referee would take a point away,” said Salita, 27. “He had warned me in the locker room.”

Salita returned to his body attack in the fifth round and returned to dominating the fight. But the stiff left jabs by Munoz snapped Salita’s head back three times. Salita returned with combinations including a big right uppercut toward the end of the round.

The sixth round was the easiest round for Salita. He moved and fired combinations that snapped Munoz' head back repeatedly. The Kansas fighter tried returning to the jab but Salita was able to avoid all of the blows.

“Everything started to flow,” Salita said.

The New York junior welterweight dominated the eighth round with precise combinations. Munoz landed a few stiff left jabs but couldn’t manage to evade Salita’s left hooks and slices to the body.

A pained look came over Munoz’s face as Salita fired combo after combo. A left hook buckled the Kansas fighter’s legs and Salita dropped a few more bombs on the bigger fighter, but he avoided any more punishing shots in the ninth round.

“I thought I hurt him but I didn’t want to get wild,” Salita said. “I was worried he was playing possum.”

Munoz came out in the 10th and final round slowly and allowed the quicker Salita to fire some shots. Then he attempted to land some of those stiff left jabs that had scored earlier in the fight, but Salita was ready for it. Instead, it was the New York fighter cruising into control and sidestepping the big lefts and uppercuts.
Two judges scored it 100-90 and a third 99-91 all for Salita.
“I give myself a B-minus,” Salita said, adding that he would like to be part of the WBA title clash between champion Andriy Kotelnik and Amir Khan on June 27 in London. “It makes sense for me to be on that card.” [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" on June 4 at 7:30 PM

JRT Public Service announcement:

The New England Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition and www.BostonsPatriots.com present noted documentary film maker and talk show host John Ziegler  who will screen his new film "Media Malpractice:  How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" on June 4 at 7:30 PM at The Studio Cinema, 376 Trapelo Rd, Belmont, MA.  Noted Radio talk show host Michael  Graham will serve as moderator for the event.

Through interviews and poll data designed and collated by Zogby Associates, Ziegler makes the case that slanted media coverage tilted the playing field toward Obama and against anyone running against him in the 2008 presidential campaign.  Questions included: Who had a pregnant teenage daughter? Which party controls Congress?  Upon which news sources do you rely?  Not surprisingly, the interviews revealed that most Obama boosters knew most of the unflattering news about the Republican ticket, but were utterly clueless when it came to negative news about the Obama team and were unable to answer even rudimentary question about government issues.

Mr. Ziegler has appeared on numerous shows to discuss his film and findings, including The Today Show, The View, Fox News (Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren, and Hannity and Colmes) CNN (American Morning and Showbiz Tonight), MSNBC (with Norah O'Donnell and David Shuster), on radio with Barbara Walters, amongst other venues and has received kudos for his most recent work. 

Following the screening of "Media Malpractice:  How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted ," Ziegler entertain questions in an open forum.  DVDs will also be available for purchase.

When: June 4 at 7:30 PM

Where: The Studio Cinema, 376 Trapelo Rd, Belmont, MA (www.studiocinema.com)

Price: $8 per ticket and may be ordered on-line at http://www.mediamalpracticemovie.com/belmont/

For additional on the film please go to: www.howobamagotelected.com or www.mediamalpracticemovie.com

posted by: jrtelegraph

Dovid Margolin: Loving Your Fellow Jew

Dovid Margolin:

As we approach the holiday of Shavuos and prepare to accept the Torah, we come to the portion of Bamidbar. Bamidbar begins with G-d's commanding Moshe and his brother Aharon to count the entire Jewish nation. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that when you count something, it does not reflect upon the value of each piece that you are counting. When you count, each piece is considered of the same value and therefore no matter how great one specific item is or how small, each item always counts as one, never more and never less. Before the Jewish people could accept the Torah they all had to be counted, and they all had to understand that in essence all of them were, and are, the same.

The Rebbe explains that in reality the difference between one Jew and another is only in their specific talents and strengths, with regards to the inner soul however, the Jewish people are all one. It was appropriate at that time that the entire Jewish nation should be counted on one plain, and that the preparation to the receiving of the Torah should focus on Ahavas Yisrael, baseless love of a fellow Jew.

The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, R' Yosef Yitzchak, related a teaching from the Baal Shem Tov that highlighted the fact that “Love of a Fellow Jew” applied as much to a simple Jew, as to a wise and learned one, the same way one counts straight without regard to the specific item that he is counting. The Baal Shem Tov would teach: “What does it say in the spiritual Tefillin of G-d Himself? It says 'Who is Your nation like Israel, one nation in the world.' The Jewish people are G-d's own pair Tefillin. The Tefillin of the hand, which is put on first, is the simple men who fulfill the Mitzvos with a pure faith, and the Tefillin of the head, which is put on second, are the wise men and the Torah scholars.” The Torah points out the importance of Ahavas Yisrael by showing the great value of even the simplest of men.

R' Zusia of Anipoli related to the Alter Rebbe, the first Rebbe of Chabad, that he had heard a teaching from his brother, R' Elimelech, who in turn had heard it from his teacher, the Maggid of Mezritch, the successor of the Baal Shem Tov. R' Elimelech said that as students they used to take turns getting the privilege to help the Maggid in his study. One time it was R' Elimelech's turn and the Maggid called to him “Meilach do you hear what they are saying in the Heavenly Academy? They are saying that Ahavas Yisrael, love of a fellow Jew, is to love an evil person, just as you would a righteous one.” The Rebbe explains that the Maggid's explanation of Ahavas Yisrael goes a bit further then the previous teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, because while the Baal Shem Tov pointed out the necessity of loving a simple man as much as a wise one, the Maggid explains that it must be an evil one as much as a righteous one too.

The Alter Rebbe possibly takes it a little farther. The Alter Rebbe explained that Ahavas Yisrael is, from young to old, like a love literally between brothers. The same way an innate love connects two brothers, so too two Jews are connected. This innate love is something that is a part of you, which means that when the Torah says “Love your fellow as you love yourself” it quite literally means, “as yourself.” A person has such a deep love for himself that though he knows of all of his own faults, his self-love comes from such a deep place within him, that he still loves himself. In that same way, the Alter Rebbe explains, a Jew should love his fellow Jew.

By reaching up to this lofty level of Ahavas Yisrael, we the Jewish nation will be able to receive the Torah as a unified nation, “as one man with one heart,” and even before that we should hear the blowing trumpets heralding the imminent arrival of Moshiach, may it be now.

posted by: jrtelegraph

Shin Bet: Beware of Facebook

Jerusalem Post:

Terrorists recruit Israelis on Facebook
May. 18, 2009
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Terror groups are seeking to recruit Israelis as spies via internet-based social groups like Facebook, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) warned on Monday.

The warning came after a number of Israelis were approached by terror elements and asked to provide classified information. In one case, an Israeli was contacted via Facebook by a man who identified himself as a Lebanese merchant and offered money in exchange for classified information regarding Israeli security facilities.

The Shin Bet noted that terror groups traditionally gathered intelligence on-line and that the use of social groups like Facebook was a new tactic aimed at obtaining classified information. Information posted on the sites, such as addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses - are also used by the groups to locate Israelis.

The Shin Bet warned of a danger that Israelis would be lured to meetings abroad where they would be kidnapped by terror groups like Hizbullah. In 2001, 16-year-old Ofir Rahum was lured to Ramallah by a Palestinian woman posing as a tourist in internet chat rooms and was killed by Fatah terrorists.

The Shin Bet added that terrorists were also tracking Web sites and forums visited by IDF soldiers and reservists from elite units, to gather information on security apparatuses and IDF bases. [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Si Frumkin Dies at 78

LA Times:

Si Frumkin dies at 78; Dachau survivor worked tirelessly to assist Soviet Jews
He founded the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews in 1968 and over the next two decades would not leave the issue alone.
By Jon Thurber

May 18, 2009

In the late 1960s, as reports of repression of Soviet Jews began to increase, a question began filtering to the West: "Why have you forgotten us?"

Si Frumkin, a survivor of Dachau and a prominent Los Angeles textile manufacturer, heard the question and it reminded him of the days before the Holocaust.

A man of direct action, Frumkin founded the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews in 1968 and over the next two decades would not leave the issue alone. For years his inventive activism could be found in protests at a variety of Soviet cultural events.

When the Bolshoi Ballet came to town, he distributed fake programs outside the Shrine Auditorium telling folks to enjoy the show but added a message about repression. When Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev visited President Nixon at the Western White House in San Clemente, Frumkin released 5,000 balloons with the message "Let My People Go." He hired a helicopter to fly over the Super Bowl with a banner: "Save Soviet Jewry."

Frumkin, who did more than anyone else in the United States to focus attention on the struggle of Soviet Jews, died Friday of cancer at Providence Tarzana Medical Center. He was 78.

"Shaming the free world, especially our government, into doing the right thing was Si's cause," said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who as a UCLA student founded the California Students for Soviet Jews at the same time Frumkin founded his group.

"Nothing was more abhorrent to Si than free people sitting on their hands while others in need of help suffered," Yaroslavsky said of his longtime friend.

He was born Simas Frumkinas on Nov. 5, 1930, in what is now Kaunas, Lithuania, to a family of affluent and assimilated Jews who were not actively religious. His father was a prominent automobile and motorcycle dealer.

The Communists took over his father's business in 1940. The Germans went to Kaunas in 1941 and herded the Jewish community into a ghetto ringed by barbed wire. When the ghetto was evacuated in 1944, Si and his father were sent to Dachau. His mother was sent to Poland.

He and his father were forced to work in an aircraft hangar and manufacturing plant for the Nazis.

"I was just 13," Frumkin told The Times some years ago. "I carried bags of cement. I unloaded brass. I carried metal rod for construction."

Frumkin's father died 20 days before Dachau was liberated in 1945. Frumkin studied in Switzerland and England before immigrating briefly to Venezuela, where he was reunited with his mother. He arrived in New York in 1949 and graduated from New York University in 1953.

Shortly after graduation, he moved to Los Angeles and eventually took over Universal Drapery Fabrics, a downtown textile company. At night, he earned a master's degree in history at Cal State Northridge. Once the plight of Soviet Jews caught his attention, he focused on activism.

He tried to engage the local Jewish Federation Council to take an activist role in the name of Soviet Jewry but was met with resounding silence. He was told not to rock the boat as the U.S. was trying to achieve a level of rapprochement with the Soviet Union.

From the late 1960s on, he relentlessly pressed government officials to pressure Soviet officials to open doors for Soviet emigration. He started an "adopt a refusenik family" campaign across the country, using the term applied to Soviet Jews trying to leave. He organized demonstrations that got thousands of people into the streets. He burned Soviet flags and was accused of using intimidation in lobbying travel agents to stop promoting trips to the Soviet Union.

"Virtually everything that was done emanated from Si's head," Yaroslavsky told The Times some years ago.

In that article, Yaroslavsky recalled the occasion when a Soviet freighter arrived in the Port of Los Angeles. The two men rented a motorboat and headed out to the ship. Their plan was to paint on its side a sign reading "Let the Jews Go." But how to stay in place when they cut the motorboat's engine? Frumkin solved the problem, Yaroslavsky said, by mooring the boat to the freighter with a toilet plunger.

By 1976, more than 72,000 Jews had been allowed to leave the Soviet Union. Many came to America and Southern California, and Frumkin turned his attention to helping them. He was a founding member of the Assn. of Soviet Jewish Emigres and offered guidance on how to write resumes and go on job interviews. He set up clothing and household giveaways as well as a network of free healthcare providers.

"He acted as an ombudsman to a large degree," his son Michael said Sunday. "He explained American culture to the emigres and told them how to get things done."

In his later years, Frumkin also worked to help Ethiopian Jews emigrate and most recently was involved with the Israel Christian Nexus, an organization of Jews and evangelical Christians that supports Israel's right to exist.

In addition to his son, he is survived by his wife, Ella, and two grandchildren. His son Larry died in 1999.

"He was an integral part of who I am and . . . with the exception of my own parents and family, no one has had so profound an impact on me," said Yaroslavsky, who will deliver the eulogy for Frumkin at 2 p.m. today at Mt. Sinai Memorial Park, 5950 Forest Lawn Drive, Hollywood.

Instead of flowers, his family asks that contributions be made to the organization he founded, the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews, P.O. Box 1542, Studio City, CA 91614. [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

Victory Day in Moscow: Glory, History, and Crimes

Forbes.com:

Victory Day Festivities In Moscow
Cathy Young, 05.12.09, 4:45 PM ET

This past weekend's Victory Day festivities in Moscow shut down traffic on several major downtown streets for three days--a vivid reminder of the special place the victory over Nazi Germany holds in Russian culture and consciousness. And it's no wonder, since it is the only major event in the last 100 years that all Russians, regardless of their politics, can celebrate.

Yet the legacy of World War II is also a perennially contentious topic in modern Russia. Even the celebration parade is not without controversy: Russians who lament the resurgent power of the state wince at the big display of military hardware, abandoned after the fall of communism but revived last year. Meanwhile, ongoing and often acrimonious disputes about Russia's wartime role have led to pending legislation that some say would criminalize "patriotically incorrect" opinions.

For Russians, the "Great Patriotic War" is a memory of tremendous sacrifice (with military and civilian casualties estimated at 20 to 26 million for the entire Soviet Union and up to 14 million in Russia) as well as heroism. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, it was a rude shock for many Russians to learn that people in the former Soviet republics often took a very different view of the war. Particularly in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Soviet troops were more commonly seen as occupiers than liberators.

These tensions erupted into a crisis during the spring of 2007, when the Estonian government relocated a 1947 Soviet memorial to "the liberators of Tallinn" from the downtown capital to a military cemetery, over Russia's strenuous objections. Retaliation included officially condoned harassment of Estonian diplomats in Moscow and massive hacker attacks on Estonian government Web sites.

Last year, the Russian government and its lapdog press whipped up another fit of righteous outrage over Estonia's disrespect for Soviet war heroes. This time, the cause célèbre was the prosecution of decorated war veteran Arnold Meri on charges of genocide, for his role in the deportation of Estonian civilians to Siberia in 1949. In May 2008, the Russian parliament, the Duma, denounced the charges as an attempt at World War II revisionism. After Meri died last March, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev posthumously awarded him the Order of Honor and hailed him as a man who "fought Nazism to the end of his days."

Yet the shadow of Stalin-era crimes mars Russia's own remembrance of the war. Glamorized official history leaves little room for acknowledgment of the Soviet regime's inhumanity toward its own people: the use of untrained draftees as cannon fodder, the practice of special units (the infamous SMERSH, short for "Death to Spies") following behind regular Soviet troops and shooting at soldiers who tried to retreat, and the fact that Soviet POWs coming home after the war were not feted but sent to the Gulag as traitors.

Attempts to expose this darker side of the war effort often meet with resistance. Earlier this year, Russia’s NTV channel aired a documentary that focused on the 1942-43 battles at Rzhev where as many as a million Soviet soldiers died, largely due to the high command's strategic errors and utter indifference to casualties. The film drew protests from veteran groups and parliament members. Meanwhile, Stalin apologists who argue that the dictator's brutal methods ensured Russia's survival frequently use the victory over Nazism as a trump card.

In late February, Cabinet Minister Sergei Shoigu, a leader of the ruling United Russia party, stepped into the fray with a suggestion to criminalize "the denial of the victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War." He warned that, if the law passed, "the presidents of certain countries who engage in such denial could not visit Russia with impunity." On its face, the proposal was absurd; no sane person would question the fact of the Soviet victory in 1945. But Shoigu clearly meant something else: the portrayal of this victory as not always glorious or beneficent.

Shoigu's bold idea was praised by some politicians and endorsed by the prosecutor general. Still, perhaps due to its failure to pass the laugh test, it was never submitted to the parliament in its original form. Instead, the Duma is considering a law titled "On combating the exoneration of Nazis, Nazi war criminals and their accomplices in independent states, which were formerly republics of the USSR," a narrower version of Shoigu's proposal. If the bill passes--as seems likely--individual offenders may be jailed or barred from entering Russia, and offending countries may be targeted for economic sanctions.

Combating pro-Nazi revisionism is a worthy goal. Moreover, the phenomenon of Nazi collaborators in former Soviet republics donning the mantle of anti-Soviet freedom fighters is not entirely a figment of Russian propaganda (Latvian SS Legion veterans' marches in Riga have been denounced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center).

Yet, as Russian Jewish writer Denis Dragunsky has noted in the online journal Chaskor.ru, it is rather odd for a country to pass legislation directed primarily at activities occurring in other sovereign states. Besides, given how creatively Russian prosecutors and courts have interpreted laws on extremism or hate speech, there are well-founded fears that the new law will target legitimate but unpopular opinions. Could former Estonian President Mart Laar find himself in trouble for having written that the Soviet occupation was as great a tragedy for Estonia as the Nazi occupation?

The need to take pride in one's history is entirely understandable. Yet the rightful pride Russians feel in their country's victory in the war has been exploited, again and again, to excuse both the crimes of past regimes and present-day authoritarianism. And that, in the end, is no victory for anyone except tyrants.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and columnist for RealClearPolitics.com, is the author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (1989). She blogs at www.cathyyoung.wordpress.com.

posted by: jrtelegraph