NCSEJ WEEKLY NEWS BRIEF Washington, D.C. July 21, 2017

In meeting with Netanyahu, Hungary’s PM acknowledges ‘sin’ of WWII By Raphael Ahren The Times of Israel, July 18, 2017 http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-meeting-with-netanyahu-hungarys-pm-cites-sin-of-wwll/

BUDAPEST, Hungary — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday acknowledged Hungary’s “sin” in not protecting the country’s Jews during World War II, seeking to quell a controversy over his recent praise for Hungary’s wartime leader and Hitler ally Miklos Horthy.

Standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Hungarian leader also promised a “zero tolerance policy” toward anti-Semitism.

“We are aware of the fact that we have quite a difficult chapter of history behind us. And I wanted to make it very clear to him that the Government of Hungary, in a previous period, committed a mistake, even committed a sin, when it did not protect the Jewish citizens of Hungary,” Orban said. “I want to make it clear that it is our belief that every single Hungarian government has the obligation to protect and defend all of its citizens, regardless of their birth and origins.”

Hungary’s Nazi-allied regime instituted anti-Semitic laws modeled on Germany’s Nuremberg laws beginning in 1938. After German tanks rolled into Budapest in 1944, Nazi-installed Hungarian leaders ordered the mass deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. Some 600,000 Hungarian Jews were killed during the war, through deportation to death camps or in massacres on Hungarian soil.

Orban said Hungary failed to live up to its commitment to its citizens during World War II, “both morally or in other ways. And this is a sin, because we decided back then, instead of protecting the Jewish community, to collaborate with the Nazis. I made it very clear to the prime minister that this is something that can never, ever happen again, that the Hungarian government will in the future protect all its citizens.”

Hungarian officials later pointed out this was the first time Orban referred to Horthy’s actions as a “sin.”

MK Yair Lapid, who had urged Netanyahu’s to cancel his planned trip unless Orban’s apologizes, welcomed the Hungarian’s leader’s statement, but reiterated his outrage over Orban’s previous praise for Horthy.

“We must be clear: Hungary had a significant role in the Nazi extermination machine and was actively involved in the murder of Jews, in the murder of my family. That only heightens the severity of praising Miklos Horthy,” Lapid said. “The State of Israel is a strong and sovereign country and we must fight the increasing expressions of anti-Semitism in Europe which come from both the left and the right. When a prime minister in Europe says that an anti-Semite was ‘an exceptional statesman,’ we cannot be silent. That it is our moral responsibility to the millions who were murdered in the Holocaust.”

During the joint appearance with Netanyahu, Orban pointed out that a “sizable” Jewish minority lives in Hungary today. “I made it very clear to the prime minister that their security, being Hungarian citizens that they are, will be fully guaranteed by the Hungarian state, I’ve also made it very clear to the Prime Minister that the Hungarian government has a zero tolerance policy against all forms of anti-Semitism.”

There is a renaissance of Jewish life here in Hungary, Orban added. “And this is something that we are proud of. We think that the renaissance of Jewish life is a substantial contribution to the common achievements of the Hungarian nation quite clearly.”

Orban praised Netanyahu as a “dedicated patriot,” adding that this is the key to his country’s success.

“There’s a lot for us to learn from Israel, ladies and gentlemen, because Israel teaches the world and us also that if you don’t fight for something, you will lose it,” he said. “Because nowadays, you have to fight for everything in the modern world.”

Netanyahu said he raised with Orban “concerns” about his recent praise for Horthy and an anti-immigration billboard campaign, focused on Jewish billionaire George Soros, many Jews felt was anti-Semitic.

“He reassured me in unequivocal terms, just as he did now, publicly. I appreciate that. These are important words,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister also thanked his host for standing up for Israel in international forums. “You’ve done that time and again. We appreciate this stance, not only because it’s standing with Israel, but it’s also standing with the truth.”

Budapest is at “the forefront of the states that are opposed to this anti-Jewish policy, and I welcome it,” the Netanyahu added.

Speaking in English after Orban, Netanyahu hailed Hungary as the birthplace of modern Zionism.

“When I come to Hungary, the first thing I think about, before anything else, is that Hungary was the, in many ways, the birth of modern Zionism, the movement that led to the establishment of the modern Jewish state because in Hungary was born our modern Moses, Theodor Herzl,” he said.

“It is probably inconceivable to think of the Jewish state, the State of Israel today, if it weren’t for that man born here in 1860, who envisioned the rebirth of the Jewish state and who saw in his mind’s-eye also the great challenges that would be posed anti-Semitism. He thought that this ultimately was the best solution for the Jewish people,” Netanyahu said, adding that he planned to visit the site where Herzl’s house once stood.

Before their statements, Netanyahu and Orban witnessed the signing of a bilateral culture agreement and declarations of intent regarding cooperation in innovation and technology. The culture agreement will enable reciprocal financing of cultural appearances, according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

“Dozens of Israeli shows take place annually in Hungary via the existing culture agreement and dozens more will be added, thanks to the new one, thus allowing additional artists and directors – inter alia – to go to Hungary and expose Hungarian audiences to Israeli culture,” the PMO said.

The innovation and technology agreement is intended to increase cooperation between the Israel Innovation Authority and its Hungarian counterparts to promote Israeli-Hungarian startups. “The goal of the agreement is to promote cooperation between the governments including in the private sector with emphasis on high-tech, autonomous vehicles and new technologies,” according to the PMO.

Earlier on Monday, Netanyahu and his wife Sara were welcomed by Orban and his wife Aniko Levai at the steps of the Parliament in Hungary, where they reviewed a military honor guard. The Netanyahus toured the parliament, which houses the Holy Crown of Hungary, which has been used by kings since the twelfth century.

On Monday afternoon, Netanyahu was met Hungarian President Janos Ader in the presidential palace. He concluded the day with a dinner with Orban at the prime minister’s residence.

On Tuesday, he will meet the leaders of the Visegrad Group, a political alliance of four Central European countries: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. He will also hold individual working meetings with Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Later in the day, Netanyahu and Orban will attend an economic forum attended by dozens of Israeli companies and more than 100 Hungarian companies from the cyber, high-tech, agriculture, pharmaceutical and technology sectors.

On Wednesday, the two prime ministers will visit the Dohany Street Synagogue and meet with Jewish community leaders. Relations between the local Jewish community and Israel have been tense over recent controversies surrounding Netanyahu’s apparent refusal to confront Orban over moves perceived as promoting anti-Semitism in the country.

Anti-Semitism, Hungary, and Netanyahu: What you need to know By Cnaan Lipshiz JTA, July 19, 2017 http://www.jta.org/2017/07/19/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/anti-semitism-hungary-and-netanyahu-what- you-need-to-know To critics of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister’s visit to Hungary this week was a disgrace and an abandonment of local Jews in their fight against a government that is widely seen as one of Europe’s worst promoters of anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism.

Yet other Hungarian Jewish leaders and observers of Israel-Hungary relations viewed the visit as both vital to his country’s own interests and effective in assisting Hungarian Jews to promote theirs.

Such were the dynamics when Netanyahu held a joint news conference Tuesday with his Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orban, during which Netanyahu devoted exactly 35 words to what he called “the concerns” of the Jewish community in Hungary. He did not specify those concerns in the statement, which kicked off the three-day visit in Hungary — the first by an Israeli prime minister since the fall of communism.

“I discussed with Prime Minister Orbán the concerns that I heard raised from the Jewish community,” Netanyahu said. “He reassured me in unequivocal terms, just as he did now, publicly. I appreciate that. These are important words.”

It was a vague and mild reference to a growing list of grievances fueling an escalating row between a significant part of Hungarian Jewry and their government. This includes alleged anti-Semitic incitement by the government in the form of attacks on the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros; the glorification of Nazi collaborators; crackdowns on Jewish opposition groups, and state-sponsored xenophobia against other minorities.

Zehava Gal-On, the leader of Israel’s left-wing Meretz party, wrote on Facebook ahead of Netanyahu’s visit that in view of the track record of Orban’s government, Netanyahu “has become a collaborator of anti- Semites.” Andras Heisler, president of the Mazsihisz Jewish federation of Hungary, said ahead of the visit that his community felt “left in the lurch” by Israel because of its perceived indifference to some of the issues at play.

Also prior to the visit, Heisler told JTA that he hoped Netanyahu “condemns strongly any kind of hate campaign or hate speech.”

Netanyahu’s photo op with Orban on Tuesday was not the rebuke that Mazsihisz had been seeking, the chairman of its rabbinical council, Rabbi Zoltan Radnoti, told JTA the following day.

“Bibi pushed away Hungarian Jews in favor of good relations with Orban, who can now dismiss accusations of anti-Semitism by citing Netanyahu’s support,” Radnoti said, using the Israeli prime minister’s nickname.

But to Rabbi Slomo Koves, leader of the Chabad-affiliated Unified Hungarian Jewish Congregation, or EMIH, the Netanyahu visit was instrumental in obtaining Orban’s first unequivocal rejection of Hungary’s fascist past, when Orban said the country had committed a “sin” in not protecting its Jewish citizens during World War II.

And the visit was crucial, Koves added, for strengthening Jerusalem’s alliance with one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the European Union and the only member state with a large Jewish population that is not under threat from anti-Semitic violence.

Some prominent members of Mazsihisz share his view.

Peter Feldmajer, its previous president and now a representative in the umbrella group for the Central District, said government-led campaigns to rehabilitate collaborators with the Nazis or demonize liberal Jews like Soros are “ugly” and they “hurt the Jewish community of Hungary.” He also agreed that the anti-Soros campaign had anti-Semitic characteristics.

“But the community is threatened not by these issues,” Feldmajer said, “but by Islamic violence and bans on ritual slaughter, both of which Orban opposes. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Netanyahu being received here.”

Koves called Orban’s remarks, delivered at a joint news conference with Netanyahu, the “most outspoken rejection of Hungary’s fascist past and admission of guilt” ever.

The government of Hungary, Orban said, “committed a sin when it did not protect the Jewish citizens of Hungary.” Hungarians, he added, decided “instead of protecting the Jewish community to collaborate with the Nazis.”

Radnoti welcomed Orban’s speech but said it omitted a direct reference to the active murder of tens of thousands of Jews by Hungarian troops.

“Orban spoke of collaboration. But Hungarians did more than help the Germans kill Jews: They killed them themselves, and in thousands,” the rabbi said.

Still, coming from a leader whose party openly glorifies late politicians with an anti-Semitic legacy, the Orban speech was precedent setting, according to Efraim Zuroff, a hunter of Nazis and head of the Eastern Europe operations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

“It was very important,” Zuroff said of the prime minister’s words about the Holocaust. “I never heard this from Hungary.”

Indeed, two years ago, Orban was accused of whitewashing Hungary’s Holocaust-era record when he ignored Jewish protests about a monument built in Budapest about the Nazi occupation that featured an innocent angel being attacked by a vicious eagle. Only last month, Orban in a speech called the Nazi collaborator Miklos Horthy, Hungary’s World War II leader, an “exceptional statesman.”

Orban’s statement made it counterproductive for Netanyahu to revisit the issue, Koves argued.

“I’m no diplomat, but I think it’s common sense that such a statement is more powerful coming from Mr. Orban than from Mr. Netanyahu,” Koves said while crediting Israeli diplomacy, at least in part, for obtaining the statement.

The statement was a step further than any gesture Orban had made previously regarding Hungarian complicity in the Holocaust. He also said the Hungarian government today has a “zero tolerance” attitude to anti- Semitism.

But the “problem is,” Zuroff said, “it doesn’t represent the reality on the ground.”

He was referring to a host of government initiatives celebrating fascists and obstructing efforts to bringing Nazi- era criminals to justice, as well as the recently terminated billboard campaign against Soros, a left-leaning American billionaire who funds opposition groups and organizations assisting Muslim immigrants both in Hungary and Israel.

Mazsihisz claimed the billboards, which featured pictures of a laughing Soros and a slogan saying “don’t let him have the last laugh,” encouraged anti-Semitism. Indeed, some of the posters were defaced with anti- Semitic slogans.

“Soros’ name has a different meaning in Hungary [than] in Israel,” Heisler, the Mazsihisz president, told JTA earlier this week. “In Hungary, Soros is the symbol of the Jewish capitalist. The campaign against Soros in Hungary incited anti-Semitic reactions.”

The Chabad-affiliated EMIH, however, disputes the assertion, viewing the campaign as criticism only of Soros’ politics and actions. Organizations belonging to both EMIH and Mazsihisz receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funding.

Israel’s ambassador to Hungary, Yossi Amrani, made a statement earlier this month that seconded the Mazsihisz view. But the following day, a spokesman for the Israeli foreign minister added a “clarification” to the Amrani statement saying that its “sole purpose” was to reflect that Israel rejects “any expression of anti- Semitism in any country and stands with Jewish communities everywhere in confronting this hatred.”

The clarification added that in no way was the statement “meant to delegitimize criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.”

Regardless of the Israeli government’s open animosity toward Soros, Israel has good reasons to preserve its friendship with Hungary.

Netanyahu alluded to this in his statement, and later in a hot-mic incident in Budapest, where his private summit talk with Orban and three other leaders of EU member states in Central Europe was accidentally aired to journalists.

In his public address, Netanyahu thanked Orban for “standing up for Israel in international forums. You’ve done that time and again” – an apparent reference to Hungary’s public refusal to comply with European Union regulations requiring separate labeling for products from West Bank settlements and several similar cases.

Later, meeting with Orban and leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, Netanyahu was heard calling the European Union “crazy” for insisting that closer trade ties with Israel will only come after the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He asked the leaders to help change that policy.

Insisting Israel downgrade its relations with Hungary over perceived anti-Semitism is “unrealistic,” according to Koves, who said doing so ignores Israel’s need for allies like Hungary. But it is also unjustified, he added, in light of the relatively positive situation of Hungarian Jewry.

According to TEV, a watchdog group on anti-Semitic incidents set up jointly by Mazsihisz and EMIH in 2013, there is no evidence suggesting the anti-Soros campaign is increasing anti-Semitic incidents. In its annual report for 2016, the group documented a total of 48 anti-Semitic hate crimes — a 16 percent decrease from the previous year.

The data, compiled according to international standards and without direct government funding, suggest that Hungary, which is home to 100,000 Jews, has the lowest per capita prevalence of anti-Semitic crimes of any EU state with a sizable Jewish population. This includes Britain (1,309 incidents in 2016), France (335) and Germany (461).

Hungary recently saw the opening of a major kosher slaughterhouse in its south amid vows by Orban to protect religious freedoms in his country. It came in stark contrast with steps to limit practices like kosher slaughter in Western Europe “that make life miserable for local Jews,” Koves said.

What these data and trends mean, Koves added, is that “Jewish communities are thriving and safer in Hungary, which is a reliable friend of Israel, than in many countries in Western Europe that do their best to isolate both their Jews and Israel. And the Israeli prime minister is supposed to boycott Hungary or destroy relations with it?”

Besides, Israel has leveraged its diplomacy in memory-related issues in Hungary, at times behind the scenes and at other times publicly, Koves said. He cited the 2012 withdrawal of an invitation to the Israeli Knesset extended to the Hungarian parliament’s speaker, Laszlo Kover, over his attendance at a commemoration of the anti-Semitic author Jozsef Nyiro.

Still, Zuroff said Israel can do more to counter Holocaust distortion and revisionism in Eastern and Central Europe while pursuing its strategic goals.

“Israel has abandoned ship, giving countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine a green light to continue with the vilest forms of Holocaust revisionism that reflect local anti-Semitism,” he said.

Israel needs to forge its foreign relations according to its own strategic road map, Zuroff said, but Jerusalem can still “leverage the fact that Israel has become a powerful economic player, a hub of innovation, to achieve” additional goals.

“There’s a way to do this without harming partnerships,” he said. “But not without political will.”

EU eastern states say bloc must show more support for Israel By Marton Dunai and Jeffrey Heller Reuters, July 19, 2017 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-israel-idUSKBN1A40WZ

Europe should better appreciate Israel’s key role in Middle Eastern stability, leaders of four central European nations said on Wednesday in a joint attack with Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu on Brussels’ current policy toward the state.

The comments were the latest example of divergence between west and east Europe, where questions of national sovereignty, migration and civic freedoms have also stirred friction. U.S. President Donald Trump lent support this month to Poland, target of criticism by the EU he has disdained, with a visit to Warsaw.

Netanyahu met the Visegrad Four leaders of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, who backed Israel and called for an improvement in the EU's relations with the state.

"I think Europe has to decide whether it wants to live and thrive or it wants to shrivel and disappear," Netanyahu told the leaders of the eastern EU states behind closed doors in Budapest.

In an audio recording of the remarks obtained by Reuters, Netanyahu goes on to say: "It's a joke. But the truth is the truth, both about Europe's security and Europe's economic future. And both of these concerns mandate a different policy toward Israel."

Israel has often been criticized in Western Europe on matters such as its settlement policy. The recent closeness of Netanyahu with leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been viewed with suspicion in the European Union.

Netanyahu asked the four premiers point blank to support his country in Brussels.

"If you, as the Visegrad group, can begin to advance this conception, I think this would be... beneficial to you but I think it would actually be beneficial to all of Europe."

"We're part of European civilization. You look at the Middle East - Europe stops in Israel. That's it."

At a later press briefing Netanyahu repeated the statements in a more diplomatic language, saying Israel "serves a unique function in being the one Western country in the region, the one country that is able to limit and fight from within the region this great danger to all of us."

"We're often criticized by Europe, (more often) than any other place in the world... It's time to have a reassessment in Europe about the relations with Israel."

Hungary's Orban, himself often accused in Brussels of flouting liberal democratic values such as press freedom, said he and other Visegrad leaders would support better relations between the EU and Israel.

The group will meet in 2018 in Jerusalem at Netanyahu's invitation.

"The Visegrad Four shares the Israeli view that external border defense is key," Orban told a press briefing. "Free movement of people without controls raises the risk of terror."

Orban has been criticized in the EU for erecting a razor wire border fence and refusing to accept migrants under EU agreements, preferring "ethnic homogeneity".

But he backed down from a recent rhetorical overture toward far-right groups amid accusations of anti- Semitism.

"The EU should appreciate the efforts Israel makes for the (Middle East) region's stability, which serve Europe as it spares us from newer and newer waves of migration," he said.

MH17 Victims Remembered Three Years After Jet’s Downing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 17, 2017 https://www.rferl.org/a/mh17-amsterdam-ukraine-russia-malaysia-disaster/28620074.html

More than 2,000 relatives gathered in the Netherlands to unveil a memorial to family members who were killed when a passenger jet was shot down by a missile over conflict-torn eastern Ukraine.

Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima on July 17 attended the ceremony the ceremony to dedicate the memorial to flight MH17's victims in Vijfhuizen park, near Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam.

Family members read the names of the 298 passengers and crew killed when the Malaysia Airlines jet was shot down during what should have been a routine flight from Schiphol to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014.

Most of the passengers were Dutch but there were people of 17 nationalities on board on board the Boeing 777, including Australians, Britons, Malaysians, and Indonesians.

A total of 298 trees have been planted in the shape of a green ribbon -- one for each of the 283 passengers and 15 crew – in what organizers called a "living memorial." They said the trees will be surrounded by sunflowers, which bloom in July and will "radiate a golden glow" over the site.

Evert van Zijtveld, who lost his two teenage children in the crash, told a ceremony attended by relatives and friends of the victims that they "shall not give up and shall not be silenced until those who are responsible have been brought to justice."

"Our loved ones together went on a journey on July 17, 2014, and this memorial forest symbolically unites them again," he added.

The plane was shot down months after the start of a war between Ukrainian government forces and Russia- backed separatists who seized parts of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk amid unrest that was fomented by Moscow.

The war has killed more than 10,000 people since April 2014 including the passengers and crew of MH17, which crashed in separatist-held territory in the Donetsk region.

An international investigative team concluded in September 2016 that the Russian-made Buk missile system that was used to down the airliner had been brought into Ukraine from Russia shortly before it was shot down and then quickly smuggled back to Russia afterward. It said the missile was fired from a field in separatist-held territory.

In a statement on July 17, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini reiterated the bloc's "full support" for continuing investigations into the downing of the plane, saying "it is crucial that the investigators can complete their work, independently and thoroughly."

Despite voluminous evidence that it has sent troops, weapons, and other support to the separatists, Russia denies involvement in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. It has repeatedly sought to cast doubt on evidence of involvement in shooting down MH17.

"This insolent crime would not have happened if it were not for Russian aggression, a Russian installation, and a Russian rocket brought from the territory of Russia," Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said in a statement.

"Our responsibility before the victims as well as future generations is to prove to the aggressor and terrorist that it is impossible to escape liability for all the crimes it has committed," he said.

In a tweet earlier in the day, Poroshenko said: "We bow our heads before the 298 innocent victims whose heartbeats were stopped by a Russian missile three years ago."

About 15 relatives of victims demonstrated on July 16 in front of the Russian Embassy in The Hague, protesting what they called attempts by Moscow to block investigations into the disaster.

The demonstrators set a sign in front of the embassy saying: "Waiting for responsibility and full disclosure."

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop urged Russia to cooperate with new initiatives to prosecute suspected perpetrators.

In an interview on July 16, Bishop urged Russia to comply with UN Security Council resolution 2166, authored by Australia.

"That calls on all states to cooperate to ensure that those responsible for the killing are brought to justice," Bishop said. She said suspects may be tried in absentia.

No suspects have been arrested. Dutch authorities have said any eventual trials would be held in the Netherlands.

Separatists Proclaim a New State to Replace All of Ukraine By Nataliya Vasilyeva Associated Press, July 18, 2017 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukrainian-separatists-proclaim-state-48695669

Separatists in eastern Ukraine on Tuesday proclaimed a new state that aspires to include not only the areas they control but also the rest of the country. But Russia, their chief backer, sought to play down the announcement, saying it was merely part of public discussion.

The surprise announcement in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk casts further doubt on the 2015 cease-fire deal that was supposed to stop fighting in Ukraine's industrial heartland and bring those areas back into Kiev's fold while granting them wide autonomy. Some rebels said they have no intention of joining the new state.

More than 10,000 people have died in fighting since Russia-backed rebels took control of parts of Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions in April 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. The rebels originally sought to join Russia but the Kremlin stopped short of annexing the area or publicizing its military support for the rebels.

Donetsk separatist leader Alexander Zakharchenko said in comments broadcast on Russian television that rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk as well as representatives of other Ukrainian regions would form a state called Malorossiya.

Most of the areas which are currently part of Ukraine were referred to as Malorossiya, or Little Russia, when they were part of the Russian Empire.

Zakharchenko said they are drawing up a constitution that would be put up to a popular vote.

"We believe that the Ukrainian state as it was cannot be restored," Zakharchenko said in remarks carried by the Tass news agency. "We, representatives of the regions of the former Ukraine, excluding Crimea, proclaim the creation of a new state which is a successor to Ukraine."

Although separatists in the east have some sympathizers in other Ukrainian regions, they have not attempted to capture territories there, nor do they have any political representation there.

France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia worked out an agreement in the Belarusian capital, Minsk, in 2015 which laid out a roadmap for ending the conflict between government troops and separatists. Under the deal, the rebels would return control of the territories they had captured to Kiev while Kiev would allow a local election there and grant wide autonomy to the region.

While the deal helped to reduce the intensity of fighting, none of the political components has been implemented.

Breaking several hours of silence that passed after the separatists' announcement Tuesday, Boris Gryzlov, Russia's envoy mediating the peace talks in Minsk, dismissed the idea as public discussion.

"This initiative does not fit with the Minsk process," Gryzlov told Russian news agencies. "I see it merely as an invitation for discussion. This announcement does not have entail any legal consequences."

Asked about the rebels' announcement Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, told reporters Tuesday evening the Kremlin had no comment.

While the separatists are believed to be guided by the Kremlin, they have made statements in the past that clearly caught Moscow off guard.

Yevgen Marchuk, Ukraine's envoy at the talks, said on the 112 television channel that the announcement, made one day before the next round of talks in Minsk, "could block the negotiations entirely."

In Luhansk, rebel leaders denied that they were part of the deal. Local news website Luhansk Information Center quoted rebel representative Vladimir Degtyarenko as saying they had not been informed of the plans and have "great doubts about the expediency of such a step."

Throughout the conflict, the rebel-controlled areas have been ruled by self-proclaimed authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk who call themselves the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. Separatist leaders in Luhansk, unlike their counterparts in Donetsk, have tended to stay away from directly expressing intentions to join Russia.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Tuesday accused Russia of directing the rebels' hand in making the announcement and seeking to split Ukraine in pieces.

"You should understand that Zakharchenko and (rebel leader) Plotnitsky are not political actors," he said, dismissing them as "puppets" whose only job is to voice "the messages they receive from Russia."

Poroshenko said Ukraine is committed to the peace accords and pledged to restore control over eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Kiev-based political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko speculated that the Kremlin had instigated the announcement, perhaps trying to scare the West with a possibility of Ukraine's breakup.

"The Kremlin is no longer trying to push this malignant tumor back into the body of Ukraine," Fesenko said, adding that it is too early to predict the fallout of Tuesday's announcement because Zakharchenko is known for making outlandish claims.

The Associated Press has documented how Moscow has been propping up the separatists in Ukraine with funds, weapons and recruits. The Kremlin has firmly denied sending Russian troops to fight alongside the separatists despite the overwhelming evidence.

Yiddish comes alive in Warsaw every summer By Kateryna Markusz JTA, July 14, 2017 http://www.jta.org/2017/07/14/life-religion/yiddish-comes-alive-in-warsaw-every-summer

When Gołda Tencer, the director of the Shalom Foundation and the Jewish Theater in Warsaw, lit the Sabbath candles last Friday, she was accompanied by dozens of people from various countries. Though their mother tongues differed, the voices at the table were united by a common language: Yiddish.

The assembled crowd of about 60 had come to this capital city for three weeks in July to study Yiddish, learn its grammar, sing songs and discover something about Jewish-Polish history.

The International Seminar in Yiddish Language and Culture, which Tencer founded, is now in its 15th year. Classes are held in Muranów, a district that was once heavily Jewish and where the Warsaw Ghetto was established. It was here, during World War II, that Emanuel Ringelblum hid his archive that contained thousands of Yiddish documents about the extermination of Jews. And it is here that the seminar seeks to build upon the rich legacy of the Yiddish-speaking world.

Through the program Tencer, who also established Warsaw’s Center for Yiddish Culture 20 years ago, seeks to help pass on the immense heritage of Yiddish culture.

“The nation died, but culture and Jewish literature did not perish,” said Tencer, who grew up in Lodz. “Our duty is to pass this thread of our Jewishness.”

Among the seminar participants is Barbara Szeliga, an actress who worked at the Jewish Theater for more than 30 years. When she began acting, the theater’s productions were only in Yiddish.

“I had to learn the language to know what I was playing,” she said.

At the time there were no textbooks, dictionaries or possibilities to photocopy anything.

“We learned Yiddish from the socialist, postwar elementary school textbooks about Polish-Soviet friendship,” Szeliga recalled.

Szeliga is attending her fourth seminar, but she does not need Yiddish in order to work.

“I learn it for pleasure,” she said.

The commonality of Yiddish among the program’s participants — despite their different nationalities — is what she enjoys most about the seminar.

“I understand English, German and Russian,” she said, “but I reflexively talk to them in Yiddish.”

Participant Eugen Parnes lives in Malmo, Sweden; he and his parents left Poland when he was 17. Growing up in Wałbrzych, in southwestern Poland, he attended a Jewish school and his parents spoke Yiddish. Yet the surrounding atmosphere was not a good one.

“Little children called in the yard, ‘Jews, you killed Jesus,'” he recalled. “Who told them that? Their parents at home. Those children threw rocks at us.”

By the time Parnes and his family left Poland in 1971, Wałbrzych’s Jewish population had dwindled to just 1,000 from 20,000 in the postwar period.

“Most people at my age do not know Yiddish because their parents did not talk to them in that language, and some did not even know they had Jewish roots,” he said.

Parnes came to the seminar, which runs through July 21, because he enjoyed speaking in Yiddish — and there was no one in Sweden to converse with.

“Although I can speak, I forgot how to read and write,” he said.

Natalia Krynicka, who teaches Yiddish and Jewish literature at the Sorbonne in France, was teaching at the seminar for the fourth time.

“It’s always a great experience for me,” she said, adding that it is especially illuminating to learn about a language in a place where it was once so alive.

Participants can read a story by the late 19th-century author I.L. Peretz, for example, “and then we can go to the street where he lived, or we can visit his grave in the Jewish cemetery,” Krynicka said.

In the mornings, students learn Yiddish. In the afternoon they listen to lectures and take walks.

“The extra program, the walking tours, is very important,” Krynicka said. “We can realize how much history can destroy and how much literature can save.”

Poland’s Drift Away from Democracy By Judy Dempsey Carnegie Europe, July 18, 2017 http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/71568?lang=en

Since Poland’s conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government was elected in October 2015, it has systematically moved to consolidate its power. The country’s public media have lost their independent voice. The powers of the supreme court have been curtailed. Managers of enterprises have been replaced. Human rights, especially for women, have been constantly undermined.

The latest and most damaging development with regard to the strength and durability of Poland’s democratic structures is PiS’s move against the entire judiciary. The country’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers will now be controlled by PiS and administered by the justice minister, Zbigniew Ziobro. New legislation pushed through the parliament during a late-night session on July 12 gives Ziobro the right to appoint and dismiss judges, including those on the supreme court. The independent body that nominated judges is being disbanded. Furthermore, the justice minister now has the right to dismiss the presidents of regional and appellate courts. What this means is that if PiS wants to silence the opposition and its critics by bringing what opponents believe will be trumped-up corruption charges, the government will have a compliant judiciary at its disposal. PiS has “crushed the judicial system in Poland,” said Ewa Łętowska of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

The opposition has held demonstrations. Jarosław Kaczyński, the PiS leader, accused protesters of trying to stage a coup d’état. On July 16, Polish public television reported on the demonstrations with the caption: “The opposition attempts to organize a coup against the democratically elected government.” Such language will almost certainly become more widespread and conspiratorial in the run-up to regional elections due in 2018.

Kaczyński has never wavered in his belief that after 1989, Poland never had a real revolution that would have—in his view—cleansed the country’s system of Communists, their supporters, and the secret police. Since then, he has been waging his own relentless war against the liberal wing of the Solidarity trade union movement. For Kaczyński, it is they who have prolonged the old system. Had his nationalist wing of Solidarity been in the driver’s seat, things would have been entirely different—according to his narrative, which continues a quarter of a century later.

The vendetta has become so intense that Lech Wałęsa, the former leader of Solidarity, is vilified by PiS. He has been accused of conniving with the secret police. Poland’s school curriculum now presents a particularly jaundiced interpretation of the events leading up to 1989 and the years afterward. Wałęsa’s role hardly figures in school textbooks, if at all. Such is the politics of revenge that is playing out in Poland—to the detriment of the country’s democracy and place in Europe.

Over in Brussels, the European Commission is supposed to protect and uphold Article 2 of the EU’s founding treaty, which states, “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.” On July 14, the EU issued a statement expressing “great concern” after the Polish parliament introduced a bill to force all supreme court judges to step down except those the justice minister wanted to remain. Not much of a rebuke.

It’s not as if European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans is unaware of what is taking place in Poland. His strategy so far has been to pursue a dialogue with PiS—to no avail. The problem is that without any kind of pressure, PiS will be undeterred. One need only look at the experience of nearby Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has used his party’s two-thirds majority in the parliament to turn the country into a state based on loyalty, patronage, clientelism, and corruption.

The EU can either discard Article 2—as if civil society, the opposition, and what is left of the independent judiciary in Poland didn’t matter—or stop the flow of Poland’s EU structural funds, which are paid for by taxpayers. That is what the union should have done long ago in Hungary. But such a move would require the support of the EU member states, and Poland knows Hungary is on its side. PiS seems confident that penalties would never be agreed on. And then there is the argument that threats from Brussels will only harden PiS’s stance against the EU.

These are well-worn and tired arguments. By joining the EU, Poland and Hungary signed up to a set of obligations, values, and solidarity. The most recent developments in Poland show that Warsaw is making a mockery of the EU. But the union, with political will, still has time to change tack. After all, overwhelming majorities of Poles and Hungarians still back the EU. That support should no longer be ignored.

Poland’s Defense Minister Fends Off Anti-Semitism Allegations By Citing His Support for Israel By Larry Cohler-Esses Forward, July 21, 2017 http://forward.com/news/world/377541/polands-defense-minister-fends-off-anti-semitism-allegations-by-citing- his/?attribution=articles-article-listing-2-headline Fending off charges that he has promoted anti-Semitism, Poland’s defense minister Thursday cited the support he and his government give to Israel and comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising Poland for this support.

In a lengthy email to the Forward, a spokesman for Antoni Macierewicz, who published and edited a far-right newspaper that ran anti-Semitic material under his tenure, cited recent talks between Netanyahu and leaders of several East European countries.

During those talks, noted Macierewicz’s spokesman, Netanyahu declared, “I will say that Poland has taken a resolute stand against the resurgent anti-Semitism that we see in parts of Europe….We also know that Poland has taken an important position in international forums against the automatic reflex of anti-Zionism and anti- Israel resolutions.”

Macierewicz “was one of four members of the cabinet, who, alongside the Prime Minister of Poland…participated in the consultations,” the spokesman, Edmund J. Janniger, wrote. “Minister Macierewicz has proven to be a stalwart friend of Israel with a strong record of support for the Jewish people.”

Janniger’s email followed a Forward report, published Tuesday, on Macierewicz’s response to a book with damaging allegations about his background. Macierewicz has filed a criminal complaint against the book’s author, a former freelancer in Warsaw for the Forward. The complaint, filed with the military bureau of Poland’s prosecutor-general’s office, charges journalist Tomasz Piatek with “using force or threats against a public official” and “public insults or humiliation of a constitutional body.”

If found guilty of these charges, Piatek could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

The Forward’s article also noted a July 2016 article that Piatek published in the Forward that detailed the defense minister’s earlier history as the publisher, editor-in-chief and part owner of Glos, a far-right newspaper that frequently ran anti-Semitic content. Macierewicz demanded “a full and immediate retraction” of these allegations and threatened “to vigorously pursue all available actions and remedies” if one was not forthcoming.

“For the record,” Janniger said, “while Minister Macierewicz has written for the Głos newspaper, and has served on its leadership board, his positions in government and in parliament have kept him more than simply at arms length from all editorial decisions. Głos was managed by a limited liability company with a one-person board of directors, and has never had an affiliation with the Ministry of National Defense or the Polish government. When Minister Macierewicz wants to write articles or make statements, he has his official position from which to make them.”

This is not the first time that Macierewicz has had to respond to allegations of anti-Semitism. In 2015, before he was confirmed as defense minister, the Anti-Defamation League called on Poland’s new prime minister to reconsider Macierewicz’s appointment unless he publicly recanted an anti-Jewish remark from 2002. Macierewicz said through a spokesman at the time that his remarks were misinterpreted and that he condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.

On Tuesday, a coalition of press freedom watchdog groups protested Macierewicz’s criminal complaint against Piatek as contrary to democracy. The groups, which include Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and the International Press Institute, charged that Macierewicz’s attempt “to intimidate a journalist seems to be part of a broader two-year-old offensive against freedoms in Poland.”

The reference was highlighted this week by protests involving tens of thousands that have erupted in Poland’s major cities. The demonstrations came in response to legislation the ruling Law and Justice Party is on the verge of passing that would rein in the judiciary’s political independence. The measures include provisions that would give the ruling party control over who could be considered for a slot on the nation’s Supreme Court and dismiss all current members of the court. Poland’s justice minister, a Law and Justice member, would have the power to appoint new justices, going forward.

Piatek told the Forward that if the prosecutor-general moves on Macierewicz’s criminal complaint against him, he viewed his prospects for receiving a fair hearing under such a system as “impossible.”

Piatek’s new book, “Macierewicz and His Secrets,” published in June, alleges that Macierewicz, a hardline, anti-Russian political leader in Poland’s nationalist government, has a long history of ties to paramilitary organizations that recruited pro-Russian neo-Nazi youth and members of an openly pro-Kremlin party into its ranks. Piatek reports that the defense minister has incorporated these militias into Poland’s civil defense forces. As part of these forces, he writes, the militia groups were deployed in NATO’s 2016 Anaconda military exercise — the largest NATO maneuvers near Russia’s borders since the end of the Cold War.

The book also alleges long-standing ties between Macierewicz and individuals who work with the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, as well as members of the Russian mafia.

Janniger’s email to the Forward does not address these allegations.

Piatek’s book does not contain much about Macierewicz’s record of promoting anti-Semitism in his newspaper, Glos. The journalist covered this part of Macierewicz’s career in his article for the Forward.

That article documented Macierewicz’s role, before his ascension to the defense ministry, as the paper’s founder, editor-in-chief and co-owner. During the 1990s, when Macierewicz was actively involved in the publication, the paper ran anti-Semitic articles and cartoons, Piatek reported. The journalist found 43 anti- Semitic articles, some signed by Macierewicz himself, in 1996 alone.

One article penned by Macierewicz denounced as “a brazen lie and a defamation” the documented slaughter of 40 Polish Jewish survivors of the Holocaust by their non-Jewish Polish neighbors in Kielce when they returned to the town in 1946, after World War II, Piatek reported.

Another, in June 1996, blamed “Jewish circles” for the finding by historians across the spectrum that local Poles committed the Kielce murders. A July 1996 article asserted that American Jews were financing Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

In an issue of August 1996, Witold Gadowski, now an important right-wing journalist, hinted at an alleged Jewish plan to take over Polish houses and force Poles to live on the streets, Piatek’s Forward report stated. Gadowski cited a “Colonel Strauss,” the former deputy police chief for the Krakow Region, as “strictly linked to the Jewish nationality,” adding, “You can see him in synagogue very often” — an apparent suggestion, wrote Piatek, that Jews had infiltrated the local authorities.

Cartoons in the paper often depicted Jews with stereotypically anti-Semitic physical characteristics.

Kyrgyzstan sets stage for open presidential election By Henry Foy Financial Times, July 16, 2017 https://www.ft.com/content/d07f919c-6a01-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa?mhq5j=e3

Competitive elections are few and far between in Central Asia, a region better known for its longstanding, autocratic leaders. But gold-exporting Kyrgyzstan is on course for the region’s most open presidential election in history with dozens of candidates in contention as the ruling party’s control over the ballot slips.

The Social Democratic party on Saturday agreed to officially nominate Sooronbai Jeenbekov, the prime minister, as its candidate for the October poll. However, in a sign of the uncertainty around the election, Chynybai Tursunbekov, a party colleague and parliamentary speaker, confirmed he would also stand.

In stark contrast to elections in neighbouring states such as Kazakhstan, Taijikistan and Turkmenistan where incumbents typically claim victory with more than 90 per cent of the vote, Mr Jeenbekov and Mr Tursunbekov join 26 other candidates in the wide open race to succeed Almazbek Atambayev, who is standing down after one six-year term in office, as prescribed by law.

Foreign investors have viewed political succession as a growing risk in Central Asia, following the unexpected death of Islam Karimov, the former Uzbek president, last year, and the advancing age of veteran rulers in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

“Disillusionment with previous governments and a demand for new faces has led to the emergence of multitude of candidates and intense competition between financial resources and administrative tools,” said Kate Mallinson, associate fellow for the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House. “A second round is looking likely and if the results are not clear there is a danger that there could be a stand-off.”

While it lacks the major oil and gas deposits of its neighbours and the resulting economic dependence on the commodity market, Kyrgyzstan nevertheless was hit by a slowdown in 2014, thanks to contagion from the economic travails in key trading partners Russia and Kazakhstan.

Public discontent at the prolonged slowdown, alongside the SPDK’s failure to stamp its authority on the succession process is seen as the factor behind the large cast of candidates.

Two former prime ministers have thrown their hat in the ring, alongside business executives. Two candidates are in jail, and another is technically banned from running because of a conviction for corruption while serving as speaker.

“Most of the election platforms, to put it mildly, are not impressive. There is an outpouring of populist promises, which even the candidates themselves must hardly believe,” said Nurlan Sadykov, director of the Institute for Constitutional Policy, a local think-tank.

“We can see that the majority of candidates do not see the main problems facing our society,” Mr Sadykov told the 24.kg news agency.

A former member of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan maintains good relations with Moscow but has also embraced neighbouring China’s One Belt One Road strategy to build trade links to Europe across Central Asia.

After being confirmed as the party’s candidate, Mr Jeenbekov, 58, said he would ensure “further development of relations with neighbouring countries”.

“We will maintain and bring to a new level strategic partnership with Russia,” said the prime minister, a close associate of the outgoing president. “[And] Kyrgyzstan will continue traditional relations of partnership with the countries, with which it has diplomatic relations: the European Union, the United States, and Japan.”

Mr Tursunbekov’s decision to run against his prime minister raises fears of a widening division in the ruling SPDK, which has been in power since a bloody uprising in 2010 that killed thousands and deposed the former president.

“We’ll have twice as many votes as if one candidate participates. Not everyone likes Jeenbekov, not everyone likes Tursunbekov . . . [the public] has the possibility to choose,” Mr Tursenbekov said on Saturday as his fellow party members endorsed the prime minister’s candidacy. “There is no split within the party,” he added.

Much could hinge on the country’s distinct political geographic division. Mr Jeenbekov is from the south, an area with large Uzbek and Tajik communities. One major rival, Omurbek Babanov, a former prime minister, hails from the more ethically Kyrgyz north.

“The divide between the north and the south of the country also heavily influences the playing field,” said Ms Mallinson. “And vitally, Russia has yet to reveal which candidate it will back.”

Trump’s Man in Moscow: Russia Envoy Nominee Faces Challenging Post By Mike Eckel Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 19, 2017 https://www.rferl.org/a/huntsman-faces-tricky-path-amid-election-meddling-allegations/28625482.html

Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor nominated by President Donald Trump to be the next U.S. ambassador to Russia, will have his diplomatic experience and business acumen put to the test should he represent U.S. interests in Moscow.

His posting, which still must be approved by the Senate, would face major challenges as the Trump administration struggles with congressional and FBI investigations into the Kremlin’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election that brought Trump to power. Russia has denied the claims.

A veteran diplomat who has served in the administrations of five U.S. presidents and was a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Huntsman has limited experience when it comes to Russia.

As President Barack Obama’s envoy to China, he helped manage Washington's challenging relationship with Beijing. The 57-year-old billionaire also served as ambassador to Singapore under President George H. W. Bush.

For months Huntsman has been touted as Trump’s choice for the post even though he has been critical of his future boss in the past.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, he called on Trump to drop out of the race after a video featuring the Republican candidate boasting about groping women surfaced.

James Collins, who served as President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Moscow between 1997 and 2001, spoke about Huntsman's prospects after reports of his possible nomination began appearing in the U.S. media in March.

"Mr. Huntsman is going to be seen as a solid professional appointment, someone who is politically relevant," he said. “I think it will be read as a signal that Trump is picking someone with political experience."

If confirmed, Huntsman will head to Moscow amid troubled relations between the two superpowers.

Trump has sought to improve relations with Russia battered by the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

He met twice with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg earlier this month. In their first encounter, they were seen shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries in front of the cameras as they looked to project an atmosphere of cordiality.

The second time, however, occurred during a private dinner for leaders, without any accompanying U.S. advisers, something that has deepened suspicion about Trump’s intentions.

Away from the smiles, bipartisan pressure on Trump has mounted as contacts between his associates and Russian officials prior to the election have unleashed a furor in Washington.

In recent weeks, Russia has been increasingly strident in its threats to confiscate U.S. diplomatic property in Moscow in retaliation for the U.S. seizure of two Russian compounds.

That decision was made by Obama in December, in response to U.S. intelligence conclusions that Russia had been actively interfering in the election campaign.

The Russian compounds, U.S. intelligence officials said, had been used for espionage and surveillance.

Recent U.S. ambassadors in Russia have experienced difficulties during their postings.

Outgoing Ambassador John Tefft is a career foreign service officer who has faced accusations -- including some that are demonstrably false -- by Kremlin loyalists of trying to foment discord in Russia.

Tefft's predecessor, Michael McFaul, encountered open hostility from the very beginning of his tenure.

On his second day on the job, in 2012, an anchorwoman on NTV (a Russian station owned by the state- controlled gas giant Gazprom) accused him on air of being sent to incite a revolution.

When reports of Huntsman’s possible nomination first emerged in March, the Kremlin reacted guardedly.

"We will welcome any head of the U.S. Embassy to Russia who will be a staunch supporter of the idea of developing the dialogue between the two countries," presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement.

Huntsman, who is married and has seven children -- including two who were adopted -- comes from a wealthy Utah family whose fortune was built on chemical manufacturing.

The company has substantial business holdings in Russia, mainly factories that manufacture polyurethane chemicals used in everything from foam mattresses, shoe cushioning, composites used in flooring, and other common household and industrial products.

Some critics have doubted that Huntsman would be able to negotiate with Moscow impartially, considering his family company’s interests in Russia.

Huntsman also sits on the board of directors of the U.S. automaker Ford, which has multiple factories in Russia, and heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar, which has a large plant in the Leningrad region outside St. Petersburg.

In the past, Huntsman has reportedly divested himself of any relevant holdings and met ethics guidelines for federal officials.

Huntsman is also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, known informally as the Mormons. The church is one of several religious denominations that have been subjected to increasing pressure from Russian authorities.

Huntsman serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council, an influential Washington think tank that frequently takes hawkish policy stands regarding Russia, but in the months ahead of his nomination he revealed little on his views toward Moscow.

Some insight into Huntsman’s thinking about Russia comes from the website he set up in 2012 as he actively considered running for president -- and challenging Obama, who was up for reelection.

Huntsman took aim at Obama’s “reset” with Russia -- a policy that had sought to improve U.S.-Russian relations after Moscow’s short 2008 war with Georgia.

“It’s a Potemkin policy,” the statement said. “Working with Russia to develop a more cooperative relationship is needed, but we should not make that relationship one that mirrors a Potemkin village in which we pretend the Kremlin is more of a partner than it is, more of a democracy than it is, more respectful of human rights than it is, and less threatening to its neighbors than it is.”

The statement is no longer on the website, but can be accessed through Internet archives.

Leading Russian rabbi criticizes local court for blacklisting book by 19th-century rabbi JTA, July 18, 2017 http://www.jta.org/2017/07/18/news-opinion/world/leading-russian-rabbi-criticizes-local-court-for-blacklisting- book-by-19th-century-rabbi

A prominent rabbi from Russia condemned a ruling by a court in the Black Sea coastal city of Sochi that blacklisted and labeled as extremist a book penned by a 19th-century rabbi.

Rabbi Boruch Gorin, a senior aide to Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar and a key figure within Russia’s Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish Communities, called “absurd” Monday’s ruling by a district court in the city to classify as extremist the book “Forcibly Baptized” by Rabbi Marcus Lehmann.

The novel, which deals with a Jew’s determination to retain his faith despite external pressures to renounce it, was added to the federal list of extremist materials of the Ministry of Justice of Russia.

In his scathing rebuke Gorin, a book publisher by profession, said the decision was “a mockery of justice” that belonged in the 19th century. He also suggested it was part of a judicial policy in Sochi to limit the growth of Jewish spiritual life, and went on to compare the move to tendencies to distort the history of the Holocaust in Lithuania.

Gorin’s rebuke was the latest and sharpest in a series of comments reflecting discomfort with authorities and the judiciary by a man who serves as the senior spokesman for Lazar. The chief rabbi’s Federation of Jewish Communities has worked closely with the Kremlin on projects related to Jewish life in Russia, which has blossomed under President Vladimir Putin, whose government has allocated land for the construction of many synagogues.

In May, a Moscow-area court ordered a foreign rabbi serving in the city, Joseph Kherson, to leave Russia, citing his illegal work there without a visa. Earlier this year, Rabbi Ari Edelkopf, the emissary to Sochi of Chabad and the Federation of Jewish Communities, was ordered to leave by a local court on unspecified security charges. Gorin strongly objected to the ruling, which a higher court nonetheless affirmed.

“Until now, it seemed like a whim of the Sochi court, now it is the decision of the Justice Ministry. And it is an absolute mockery of the entire law on extremism,” Gorin said in a statement.

“To say this book is ‘extremist,’ a book which had dozens of editions, even in Germany in the 19th century, a book about the religious discrimination of Jews in Medieval Europe — that means to ridicule the idea of the fight against extremism.”

In Moldova, a synagogue with a terrible history is for sale on Holocaust Street By Julie Masis The Times of Israel, July 20, 2017 http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-moldova-a-synagogue-with-a-terrible-history-is-for-sale-on-holocaust-street/

EDINETS, Moldova — In a small town in northern Moldova, a former synagogue is for sale on Holocaust Street.

The building, where some 90 Jewish townsfolk were executed during World War II, is being offered for 65,000 euros ($75,000) by a Moldovan owner who said “he wasn’t aware of its history.”

The owner did not wish to give his name, and asked that this journalist not take photos inside the crumbling synagogue or in the yard, which he currently rents out for approximately $100 per month to a car junkyard.

The small street where the synagogue stands was renamed “Holocaust Street” in 2003 in memory of the people who were executed inside the synagogue, said Iurii Zagorcea, a former city councilor from the Socialist Party who was behind the name change, along with his school administrator wife, Tatiana.

A small plaque bearing the name Holocaust Street hangs right on the wall of the former synagogue. A ghetto was also located on the same road during the war.

The originally suggested name was, “The street dedicated to the memory of Holocaust victims,” Iurii Zagorcea explained. However, to fit the name on street signs, the city required that it be shortened to one word. So it was shortened to “Holocaust Street.”

“It doesn’t sound quite right, but we made it shorter so that it would be easier for people to name the street,” Tatiana said. “No one is confused about it. No one has bad feelings about living on the street. People understand it correctly.”

About 90 Jews were executed inside the synagogue in 1941 by Romanian fascists after they ran there to seek shelter, said Iurii Zagorcea who has interviewed eye witnesses.

“When the executions started, the people went there for protection from God, they went there to hide. Christian peasants also hid in their churches,” he said.

‘When the executions started, the people went there for protection from God, they went there to hide’ When the fascists entered the town of Edinits in 1941, they immediately began executing Jews, according to Iurii Zagorcea who heard the story from his mother and aunt. In the first two days, about 650 people were killed, he said.

“My mother told me that the corpses lay unburied like sheaves of wheat,” he said. “There was a horrible smell of corpses in town. An aunt told me that since that time, she had never seen such big flies.”

More than 7,000 of Edinets’s 10,000 residents were Jewish at the end of the 19th century. Now only 17 Jews remain, according to data from Moldova’s latest census from 2014.

After WWII, the former synagogue was nationalized by the government, remodeled inside and used as an office of a textile manufacturer. Now the building is in poor condition and needs extensive renovation.

It is one of the two remaining synagogues in a town which had six Jewish houses of worship before the war, Iurii Zagorcea said. A portion of the other surviving synagogue and a former Jewish hospital is being used as a town museum.

A few years ago, Iurii Zagorcea put a plaque on the former synagogue to inform passersby that Jews were executed there during the war. But someone — probably the previous owner of the building, he says — removed it, probably out of fear that the building might be returned to the Jewish community or that a potential buyer might not want to purchase it.

Zagorcea also had a vision about turning the former synagogue into a museum. One part of it would be dedicated to the Holocaust in Moldova, another part to Stalinist terror and a third section would deal with the hunger that Moldova suffered after the war in 1946 and 1947 because of Soviet agricultural policies. But he abandoned the idea when he realized that no one was interested in funding or supporting the project. There is currently no Holocaust museum in Moldova.

“When I was younger, I wanted to make that kind of museum — to explain what happens during war and conquest, to help society, to educate the future generations so that it doesn’t happen again. That was my goal,” Iurii Zagorcea said.

Interestingly, the former synagogue and the Holocaust Street are now in a Roma (Gypsy) part of town, with a beautiful Roma home just across the street from it. Members of the Roma community also attended the ceremony when the street was renamed from “Zavodskaya” (which means “Factory Street”) to Holocaust Street.

Moldovan Roma were also murdered during the Holocaust, but there is currently not a single monument to Roma Holocaust victims in Moldova, Tatiana Zagorcea said.

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s collision course over Nagorno-Karabakh By Olesya Vartanyan and Magdalena Grodno Open Democracy, July 14, 2017 https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/olesya-vartanyan-magdalena-grono/armenia-and-azerbaijan- collision-course-over-nagorno-karabakh

Twenty-three years after Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a ceasefire deal that ended a bloody war over Nagorno-Karabakh, a steady drumbeat of armed escalation is making a return to large-scale violent conflict more likely than ever before.

Last April, a four-day flare-up killed at least 200 people. Further skirmishes continue to inflict casualties along the Line of Contact (LoC), the 200km frontline which separates Armenian and Azerbaijani forces. Both sides intermittently employ heavy artillery and anti-tank weapons against each other. In May this year, there were reports of self-guided rockets and missiles falling near densely populated areas. On 4 July, a two-year-old girl and her grandmother in the Azerbaijani village of Alkhanli were killed.

Years of military build-up have been propelled in Azerbaijan by oil and gas windfall and in economically weaker Armenia by Russia’s preferential prices of weaponry. Alongside highly-mobilised, bellicose societies on both sides, these developments risk escalating tensions into an unprecedented larger-scale conflict. The fallout of a headlong collision would likely cause immeasurable destruction and exact an enormous civilian casualty toll far worse than April’s flare-up. Such developments could even prompt the intervention of regional powers Russia and Turkey, who have defence commitments with Armenia and Azerbaijan, respectively.

At present, Baku and Yerevan say they have little faith in the stalled conflict settlement process led by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group. Meetings in May and June last year between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan produced no tangible results. Baku’s frustration with the status quo is at odds with Yerevan’s efforts, in the absence of security, to cement it.

Yet after the April 2016 escalation, both sides ultimately share the conviction that the use of force may be a better means to their ends than the defunct political talks. This heightens the temptation to try and use it, or to be ready to respond decisively.

The April 2016 flare-up stoked up both parties’ appetite for conflict. Despite heavy casualties on the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides, waves of pro-war sentiment swept into all segments of society. The four-day escalation amplified voices calling for a necessary decisive moment in the two-decades long conflict. Many in both societies now believe that another war is not only inevitable but may be the best way to end the perpetual, stalemated tension.

Azerbaijani society, buoyed by its sense of victory after reclaiming two strategically significant heights from Armenian side’s control, felt new confidence in its armed forces. By altering the much-resented status quo on the ground, it dispelled a myth of Armenian invincibility built up in the 1992-1994 war. Baku’s heavy investment in its armed forces since 2006 gives it the feeling of a technological edge that could tip the balance. In 2015, Baku spent $3bn on its military, more than Armenia’s entire national budget. Many in Azerbaijan consequently believe that a full reconquest of Nagorno-Karabakh is feasible.

The turbulence after April 2016 was most heavily felt in Nagorno-Karabakh society itself. Although the ethnic Armenian-controlled territory retains close links with Armenia and relies on its military support, much of the population remains relatively isolated

In contrast, in the aftermath of the April escalation, Armenians questioned their leadership’s ability to protect Nagorno-Karabakh and its ethnic Armenian population. At the same time, the escalation galvanised the Armenian society, which is fully behind a decisive response to any military challenges. But throughout 2016, with an upcoming election in Spring 2017, dissatisfaction about the post-April fall out was directed at politicians. A two-year constitutional transition from a semi-presidential system to a parliamentary republic, due to be completed in Spring 2018, has only increased the ruling elite’s vulnerabilities and restricted its room for manoeuvrer. The political elite feels itself under significant pressure not to repeat their performance and to stand tall in the face of heightening tensions.

The turbulence after April 2016 was most heavily felt in Nagorno-Karabakh society itself. Although the ethnic Armenian-controlled territory retains close links with Armenia and relies on its military support, much of the population remains relatively isolated. It harbours a distinct identity shaped by its experience as a society under siege. The local de facto Nagorno-Karabakh leadership has in the past years prioritised economic and administrative reforms through embarking on programs designed to stimulate the agriculture, energy and foreign investment sectors, all of which generate local income. Yet following April’s clashes the local authorities, with Armenia’s support, reoriented priorities. They shifted local financial resources toward military purposes, such as the construction of roads and tunnels; purchasing high-tech equipment; refurbishing trench structures; and improving surveillance.

With increasing militarism on both sides of the Line of Contact, the relative stability that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone once knew is vanishing. The danger for both sides is that another flare-up could easily spiral out of control. In the event of a full-scale outbreak of violence, neither Baku nor Yerevan are likely to secure their objectives but rather inflict severe destruction on each other.

Summer-Autumn 2017 is viewed by both sides as a critical period during which their enemy could intensify military operations. Yerevan believes that the Azerbaijani public has high expectations after last year’s gains and thinks Baku’s goal is to re-establish full control over at least some of the territories surrounding Nagorno- Karabakh (which are now held by ethnic Armenian forces) if not all of the conflict region. For its part, Baku believes Yerevan might provoke a fight to regain the land it lost in April 2016, or otherwise improve its standing. In the absence of military communications or any dialogue between the sides, a fateful misinterpretation of both sides’ intentions and activities is ever-easier to imagine along the front line.

A new consensus emerged in the Nagorno-Karabakh’s society in the winter of 2016. In the event of an Azerbaijani attack, it is likely that Armenian forces will advance fifteen kilometres beyond the LoC into Azerbaijani territory in order to establish a larger buffer zone and secure new bargaining chips for eventual negotiations. Armenians believe such a move would break their enemy’s will to fight once and for all. Yet this would be a highly risky strategy. Baku is keen to make use of its technical and quantitative advantage in weaponry and equipment supplied by Russia, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey, as well as its ever-expanding military numbers, to inflict heavy costs.

Keeping another flare-up remote, limited and local will be difficult. In the event that either side comes under heavy pressure, their possession of ballistic missiles – absent during the 1990s conflict – all but guarantees widespread destruction of civilian, economic and military infrastructure. Neither side can necessarily prevent triggering regional tripwires that might cause a far larger war. While Armenia is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO) led by Russia and also has bilateral defence commitments with Russia, Azerbaijan in 2010 signed an Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Support with Turkey.

A sudden escalation will quickly have major humanitarian impact, widespread displacement and an unprecedented number of casualties. An Armenian advance into the Azerbaijani side of the LoC would impact numerous densely populated settlements of ethnic Azerbaijanis. Estimates suggest that anywhere between 300,000 to 600,000 residents would be displaced in the event of open conflict. Moreover, war would put the 150,000 inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh itself under huge strain. Soviet-era bomb shelters are locked or decrepit and many residents remain unclear of what to do in the event of war. Basic medicinal supplies and foodstuffs are limited.

The April 2016 hostilities clarified the risks as well as heavy costs of renewed conflict. But far from spurring the two parties to cooperate and reinvigorate the moribund negotiation process, two subsequent high-level meetings in Vienna and St

Petersburg were unable to reach any agreement. Negotiations ground to a halt in September 2016, with some indications in Spring 2017 that another meeting between presidents is being considered for later this year.

Public opinion on both sides appears increasingly entrenched, bellicose and uncompromising. Respective leaders tread a fine line between appeasing hawkish domestic constituencies and compromising just enough to move the settlement process forward – or at least to prevent the blame for failure falling on their own shoulders. Ironically, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders face the same dilemma. Mutual concessions that might benefit the two countries and lower tensions in the longer term could in the shorter run threaten internal stability and the survival of ruling elites. There is thus little incentive for compromise. The tactical use of force remains the dominant modus operandi to gain advantage at the negotiating table.

Further compounding the stalemate is Yerevan and Baku’s deep mistrust of international mediators who they perceive as guided by the interests of major powers and incapable of ensuring the region’s security. In theory, both sides seek a more proactive mediation role of the OSCE Minsk Group. In practice, both sides want the Minsk Group to criticise and assign responsibility for stalled talks and the deteriorating security situation on the other party. So far the Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, Russia, the US and France, have remained highly cautious and only the Russian co-chair has had backing by the country’s leadership.

The cause of peace has suffered from waning western interest over the past decade. Russia is the sole country consistently demonstrating high level political will to engage, at the same time as selling weaponry to both parties. Both Baku and Yerevan suspect that Moscow is using this leverage to buttress its geopolitical presence in the South Caucasus, an area it considers a “sphere of privileged interests”. The absence of western leadership has left the two parties at the mercy of Russian mediation. Although Moscow has been active in forwarding proposals, they have gained little traction or support. The Lavrov Plan of late 2015, predicated on the return to Azerbaijan of five or seven Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani districts adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh, security arrangements and interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, sparked Armenian anger and fears that Russia’s position was shifting toward Baku.

So long as the conflict’s core sticking points remain unaddressed, both sides treat war as a real option. Three main issues have remained unresolved on the negotiating table since the end of the 1990s war. Resolution of these are the only way to build a solid foundation for a durable peace.

First, seven Azerbaijani districts outside Nagorno-Karabakh itself have been held by ethnic Armenian forces since 1994. While Baku insists these territories are under “occupation” – the term used in UN Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 from the 1992-1994 war – Yerevan says the territories can only be returned within a larger agreement, which will also take into consideration security arrangements and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

In order to address the outstanding conflict issues, a first stepping stone will be to combat the profound lack of trust between leaders and the societies

Second, principles of self-determination and territorial integrity are far from a black-and-white issue. Azerbaijan insists on self-rule for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan, thus guaranteeing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Armenia calls for self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh outside of Azerbaijan, which would in practice lead to independence for the territory, even if that may be a prelude to a union with Armenia.The precedents of Kosovo’s recognition by the West, and Russia’s unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014 have particular resonance in Nagorno-Karabakh. These cases stoke fears that discussions of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status might make the conflict’s parties pawns in a larger geopolitical chess game.

Third, peacekeeping forces and broader international security agreements are a precondition for return of the territories around NK under Azerbaijani control, as well as for the return home of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azerbaijanis, displaced by the 1990s war. Aside from the two sides’ general lack of faith that international guarantees will be respected, much debate exists on the composition and mandate of such a security force. Only Russia has expressed willingness to send military personnel. But in a rare example of mutual agreement, neither Baku nor Yerevan wish to see Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zone.

Troop deployment by any outside power, particularly Russia, is a hard pill to swallow for post-Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan, who have both recently celebrated a quarter century of sovereign independence.

In order to address the outstanding conflict issues, a first stepping stone will be to combat the profound lack of trust between leaders and the societies.

Since the 1990s, negotiations have become the prerogative of the two sides’ presidents and foreign ministers. While all alternative channels of communications are closed, the rhetoric since April 2016 has grown increasingly provocative. The hyper-personalisation of the process means substantive positions are the sole responsibility of the individual rather than broader institutions. When relations are frosty between leaders, as present circumstances demonstrate, negotiations cannot be divorced from the prevailing political climate.

Progress will also partly depend on restoring faith in international diplomatic mediation, namely the Minsk Group. Negotiations are the only way out of the current impasse and the best way to avert another war. Sound principles for conflict resolution exist, but pervasive mistrust, a gulf between outside mediators and the parties involved, and Baku and Yerevan’s current appetite for maximal military gains render the current formula incapacitated.

Western powers, particularly Washington and Paris, will need to reinvigorate their interest in conflict. High-level coordination with Moscow to kickstart substantive discussions on the unresolved issues is pivotal. In the short term, the Minsk Group can work on enhancing monitoring, implementing an investigative mechanism and increasing cross-party communication between political elites and militaries. Such proposals were discussed in Vienna and St Petersburg and need to proceed, but must be accompanied by the more substantive discussions of outstanding issues.

While Yerevan favours security confidence building measures before substantive talks, Baku will balk at their implementation without the prospect of discussions. Pressure from high-level powers here is capable of bridging the divide. They can also push Armenia and Azerbaijan to tone down their hostile rhetoric, soften their negotiating position, and acknowledge – privately and publicly – that this conflict ultimately will only be resolved through negotiations. Ultimately, the mentality that currently persists, namely that stalemate, even war, are better options than compromise and negotiation, must be overcome.