To Jewish Democrats

This blog is inspired by the four letters discussing the 2004 presidential elections (“The Reader’s Soapbox”, Twin Cities Jewish Life November/December 2004).
Here is a quick summary of the letters for those who do not have access to the publication: Bush is bad, but not just bad, he is just absolutely terrible, and a tyrant comparable to Stalin and Hitler. If we let him steal the elections again he will limit our civil right so severely that it our life will become reminiscent of one in a police state.
It really disturbs me to see how some Jewish Democrats are whipping themselves into an anti-Bush frenzy instead of trying to work together with other Jews and non-Jews, regardless of their party affiliation. I strongly believe that there are enough real problems that we, as Jews, have to deal with – our continuity as a people, rampant anti-Semitism (especially in Europe), lack of freedom and economic opportunities for many people in other countries, and security of the State of Israel, just to name a few. It seems to me that the authors’ party affiliation is so important to them, that it may prevent them from working with other Jews for the common good.
I am asking these authors to follow the lead of senator Lieberman, who just recently has said:
“After a divisive Presidential campaign, it is critical that Americans reunite across party lines to fight terrorism, restore fiscal discipline and meet the other great security, economic, and social challenges before us…”
I also hope that my response will help them see these important issues in a slightly different perspective, and perhaps will help move them towards accepting Jewish Republicans as equal partners in a dialog for the common good. Instead of responding to each letter separately, I will try to address some topics that are not only common to these four letters, but also common to the articles and letters published by other sources.
But before I start addressing the issues raised in the letters, I would like to share a few facts about myself since I am – like most of the people are – viewing any issue through a prism of my personal experience.
My wife, our three sons, and I are originally from the former Soviet Union, where we spent 10 years fighting the Soviet Government for the right to leave the “Great Motherland of all the working people” from 1980 until 1990. During those years, we were active in many aspects of the human rights movement and were blessed by meeting and working with many outstanding people, Jews and Gentiles alike. For the last 15 years we’ve lived in MN, belong to a conservative temple, and consider ourselves to be a typical middle class Jewish family. I have voted for Al Gore in 2000 and for Tim Penny in 2002. As you can guess I am neither a Rapture Christian nor an ultra-Orthodox Jew. I am a “new American” – I know what a police state means because I have lived in one. I also do not have luggage of legacy loyalty to one of the two main political parties. I vote for a candidate who appeals to my sense of fairness and, from my point of view, will do a better job than his or her opponent.

One of the main common themes being brought up in the letters against the Bush administration is its unilateralism. Allegedly, it is this unilateralism that caused the world opinion to shift against the US. Surely, it is better to have France, Russia, China, and Germany along with other countries as our allies. However, facts show that we had very little chance with France, Russia, and China from the very beginning. All these countries, because of a variety of internal and external factors, had decided long ago that it is in their interest to undermine the US leadership role in the world in general and in the oil-rich areas specifically. In addition, as most of us have suspected all along, and as it has been proven during the recent hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations committee chaired by Senator Coleman, Saddam Hussein was skimming from the “oil for food” program a very significant amount of money. One of the main goals for these illegal funds was the bribing off the UN officials as well as other powerful officials in the governments that have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. With the amount of money changing hands, a firm policy towards the Saddam Hussein regime never had a chance in the UN. We should also remember that the United Nations, after initially sending their representatives to Iraq, had abandoned the program due to the security concerns after the bombing of the UN HQ in Baghdad on August 19, 2003. And as the recent kidnapping and murder of Margaret Hassan demonstrated, the terrorists would go after anybody regardless of this person’s affiliation with the US (or lack there-of).
Yes, as we now know, there was no immediate threat of the WMDs in Iraq, but taking into account that Saddam Hussein made a very significant progress in his attempts to have the UN sanctions lifted and that Iraq is one of the most highly developed and wealthy countries in the Muslim world, it won’t have taken too long for Saddam to restart all the WMD programs with the friendly help from French, Russian and German companies. The entrepreneurial Pakistani nuclear marketer Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan most definitely would also pitch in to help.
While not popular with many people in US as well as abroad, Bush’s firm, almost unilateral (not counting for UK support) position on this issue led to the removal of the totalitarian regime in Iraq, as well as the “sudden” abandonment of its nuclear program by Libya. Historically, it is quite common for democratic powers to find plenty of reasons not to confront a totalitarian dictator when they can remedy the situation at a relatively minor price, compare to a significantly higher one that would have to be paid a short time later when the unchecked dictator decides to raise the bets. This determination to stand his own ground, regardless of what “well-oiled” world opinion expects him to do, this “unilateralism”, is a plus in the Bush administration column. Yes, there were mistakes made in Iraq, yes things could have been done better, but that’s always the case.
Again I would like to quote Democratic Senator Lieberman on the event of capturing Saddam Hussein: “This man was a homicidal maniac, killed hundreds of thousands of people, did have weapons of mass destruction in the '90s, used them against the Kurdish Iraqis and the Iranians, admitted to the United Nations he had enough chemical and biological to kill millions of people, supported terrorism, tried to assassinate former President Bush. I repeat: We are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison than in power.”
I understand that I may not be able to convince my counterparts that “unilateralism” is a good thing, but at least I would like them to agree that being a minority is not a sign of being wrong, especially as far as the UN is concerned.
Another point frequently made on shows and discussion boards is that although we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, we in turn targeted Iraq, Afghanistan is usually forgotten, and the omission of Afghanistan points that the participants are not really concerned about the country’s relevance in the global war with terrorism. However the most common topic is the toll that the operations in this particular country took of American soldiers and thus American psychology.
Somebody in Bush administration has insight to realize that we are not fighting just Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iran or Syria. This is the 4th world war where the democratic world fights against the new flavor of totalitarian ideology, now the one of the Islamic extremists. From this point of view it does not really matter what area sees the action first, what matters is if the regime in a particular Muslim country is willing to modernize itself to become more open and thus pluralistic form of Islam or it becomes the green permutation of Nazism. Saddam Hussein had demonstrated, beyond any doubt that he is not going to yield to pressure and modernize by releasing his grip to power. He also has demonstrated that he is extremely dangerous and cruel, cruel to the point of being sadistic. His cooperation with Al-Qaeda was a question “of when and not if”. Sooner or later he would use Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization such as Hezbollah, Jihad, etc as an expedient party to execute an action that he himself was not going to assume responsibility for.

Another common theme being brought up in the letters is Bush administration’s support of Israel.
There are multiple topics that are usually grouped under this theme: accusations that Republicans just want the Jewish vote and funds, and otherwise do not care about Israel, that Bush is controlled by the born-again Rapture Christians who are not sincere in their support for Israel, and finally that siding with Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a plus for the US President in general.
It is true that in the Republican Party, the block of Evangelical Christians – steadfast supporters of Israel, plays a very important role, while in the Democratic Party the villainization of Israel has become a pretty common phenomenon, almost as frequent as Israel-bashing by our “European allies”, the very same governments that were supposed to OK the UN policy towards Saddam Hussein.
Let’s look at the Evangelical Christians support for Israel first. It is a common knowledge that Bible occupies a central place in evangelical Christianity, much more so than in mainline Catholicism or Protestantism. Evangelical Christians take the Torah (Bible) verse from Genesis: “I'll bless them that bless Israel and curse them that curse thee" very seriously and that is the reason why most evangelical Christians support the Jewish state. Maybe some of them have a hidden agenda regarding Israel and Jewish people. Nobody can guarantee that this is not the case, but, let’s walk before we run – we are facing openly hostile Radical Muslims-Leftist Liberals block at the international arena. From Hezbollah to Communists, these groups do not have any hidden agenda regarding Israel and the Jewish people – their position is very open – the elimination the state of Israel first, and later when time permits, all the Jewish people, regardless of where they reside. So, before I obsess myself with the concern about the beliefs and intentions of the Rapture Christians, my brethren and I need to survive the assault of the Muslim-Communist alliance.
Many democrats are concerned about Bush’s connections with the Saudis.
Please, don’t get me wrong, I am also very concerned about the degree that the radical Arab money found its way into the American economy and thus politics. But this dubious honor does not exclusively belong to the Republican Party. If we look at the endorsements of the political candidates by the various Arab groups and committees, including those that support various violent methods – we would probably discover that more funds from these organizations have found its way into the Democratic Party than into the Republican one. That is why it does not surprise me at all when some democratic activists are upset about Bush’s steadfast support for the Government of Israel. They even have accused the Bush administration of “listening to Israel too much”. It is hard for me to reconcile these statements with the Democrats’ claims of their love of the Jewish people and their commitment to Israel.
In one of the letters a question, which sounded very much like an accusation, was asked about what has happened to the “Road Map” (of the Middle East Peace process). I think that we all know what has happened to it: it was blown up to pieces in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Beer-Sheva, Haifa, and other countless places by the homicide bombers funded and inspired by the Nobel Peace prize winner Chairman Arafat. Again, Bush’s firm position – refusal to deal with the glorified terrorist Chairman Arafat can only be applauded. This position not only shows to the future Arab leaders that they are not going to gain anything by playing the terrorism card, but most importantly, lays out a foundation for the successful peace process in the future. This is such a refreshing contrast to the position of the UN majority.

Another “grave” accusation quite commonly found in the letters, is that Republicans in general and President Bush in particular, want to “turn America into plutocratic theocracy”. This is as serious (or absurd if you want), as comparing President Bush to Hitler, Senator Coleman to “the devil”, and the USA to the Nazi Germany. These metaphors, so frequently thrown around by the “Moore-onic” fraction of Democrats, are really troubling to me: having spent a significant part of my life in the real “plutocratic theocracy“, the communist one, I am absolutely convinced that any of the above comparison cannot remotely come close to reality: seriously considering this possibility is just outright ridiculous. What really disturbs me is that by making these comparisons, those who use them are trivializing the horrors of the real totalitarian (a.k.a. fascists) states – brown ones (Germany), red ones (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc), as well as green ones (Saddam’s Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc).
As long as Extreme Democrats prefer phantom enemies to real ones, they will become increasingly irrelevant for the majority of the American voters. Instead of fighting Don Quixote’s wind mills, moderate democrats should see that the real danger to the Democratic Party, as well as to all of us, comes as much from the “Paranoid Left” as from the “Redneck Right”. To prove this point, I’ll allow myself a brief excurse into Russian history. While the pogroms of 1881 came as a rude shock to all the Jews in Russia and around the world, the Jewish revolutionaries particularly were shocked by the recognition of the fact that Jewish pogroms, with innocent children, women, and men murdered by the mad mob, were considered by the part of their Russian contemporaries as a progressive revolutionary tendency. The official organ of the movement stated that "we have no right to be negative or even indifferent to a pure folk movement," and that it was impossible to avoid the fact that the revolution would begin with the beating up of the Jews.
We have to be vigilant against any fringe movement that demonstrates anti-Semitic (anti-Israel) prejudice regardless of where it is coming from, extreme Left or extreme Right.

Leon Uris in Leningrad, October 1989. 

Sharansky

In many recent conversations with my friends in the Jewish community I can’t help but have sensed an alarming degree of apathy towards Natan Sharansky visit. Most of the people are just indifferent, while others are upset with his political inclinations. The spectrum of disappointment is rather wide: while some of my friends are unhappy with the fact (according to their perception) that “Sharansky is not as strong a Zionist as he was before and is now willing to compromise too much” others, at the very same time, claim that he is “too unyielding, is not willing to make compromises in the name of peace, and has betrayed human rights issues”. Many of his former supporters in the Conservative and Reform movements are very unhappy with his Knesset vote against the full recognition of the Conservative and Reform movements in Israel. Others are unhappy that he “has introduced an ethnic division into Israel’s political life by creating a party for Russian immigrants, or that he has brought into a democratic society a political team that is too contaminated by the Communist totalitarian mentality and cares only about Russian olim”. (Which is not true: Yisrael B'Aliya was a party for all new immigrants, not only Russian ones.) At the very same time some Russian immigrants are unhappy that Sharansky is not doing enough to protect their interests. All this is not surprising. Natan Sharansky is too prominent of a phenomenon to fit into a narrow framework of any individual’s expectations. It is next to impossible to keep happy all the people that were active in the Soviet Jewry movement.
Instead, it is more helpful to recap who Natan Sharansky is and why he has touched so may lives.
As we all know, Natan Sharansky is a Soviet Jew who together with other Soviet human rights activists like Yuri Orlov and Andrei Sakharov epitomized the struggle against one of the most oppressive regimes of the 20th century. For more than a year Natan Sharansky had a very real danger of being executed under a fabricated charge of high treason after a Soviet kangaroo-style court trial. Under pressure from the West the charges of high treason were later reduced to the lesser charges. In his book, Sharansky describes how his faith and believes sustained him during his years of horrific incarceration. Doubtfully, many of us would be capable of standing up to a similar challenge. Sharansky is thus an embodiment of uncompromising integrity and courage. We need to understand that Sharansky’s life experiences gives him the right to vote the way he thinks, not the way we expect him to vote from the heights of our suburban experience. His views, and votes as an MK, may not always be obvious and easy to understand to somebody who lives and lived all his life in relative safety and unquestionable comfort of Suburbia. When it comes to certain decisions, Sharansky’s judgment simply needs to be trusted, the way we trust Alan Dershowitz on issues of law and human rights.
A lot of people in this country, Jews and non-Jews alike, worked hard to initially prevent Sharansky’s murder and later ensure his freedom. Sharansky’s, Sakharov’s and Orlov’s struggle against tyranny helped unhinge the foundations of a totalitarian superpower and ultimately make life safer for all of us -- Jews, non-Jews, liberals, conservatives, Americans, Canadians, etc.
We have a chance here to pay due respect to Minister Sharansky by attending the meeting at Adath Jeshurun. Let’s set aside our minor differences and show our overwhelming gratitude to a person who in my opinion exemplifies Jewish history and pride.

A Tribute to Leon Uris

Leon Uris passed away last month at his home on Shelter Island, N.Y. This piece is an attempt to at least partially pay my respects to this great man, as a friend and also as a former Soviet Jewry activist.

I was privileged to meet Leon Uris in person in the fall of 1989 during his B’NAI BRITH-sponsored visit to the USSR. And though that was the first time I met Leon in person, I feel that I had met him long before that through his books, or rather THE book. The work I am referring to is of cause “Exodus”. It is impossible to underscore the importance “Exodus” has played in the life of the Soviet Jews. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think “Exodus” was published in Russian in Israel or United States, though even if it were; it would have been next to impossible to bring it through the airtight fortress set up by the Soviet customs agent and the KGB. The only copies I have seen in Russian within the Soviet Union were typed through carbon paper or sometimes hand-written. Someone among the Soviet Jewish activists must have translated the book into Russian and typed the first four or fives copies on a typewriter in the obscurity of his or her tiny apartment. And thus this amazing book began its triumphant journey through the hearts and minds of thousands of Soviet Jews and many times non-Jews. These underground copies successfully fought the Soviet propaganda machine for 30 years, until “Exodus” finally won by witnessing a time when it is finally legal to own and read this book in Russia.

My Moscow friends were privileged to present a copy of the typewritten “Exodus” to Mr. Uris in 1989. He became very emotional; it was obvious that this weathered copy typed on thin grey paper was probably the dearest symbol of appreciation of his works that he ever received. A couple days after that momentous event I was honored to have another chance to speak with Mr. Uris at the first Moscow Jewish café where Mr. Uris was visiting with community activists. That night Mr. Uris told me “while there are many successful writers in the world, there are few who are privileged to have their readers risk prison time for distributing and reading their books.” We had another shot of vodka with him for his new books, and another one for our luck. He knew how desperate we were at that time: many of us waiting for 10 or more years to leave Russia. It is my strong belief that Leon Uris had a unique ability to sincerely connect with the person he was with; it made one feel as if he had known Leon for years rather than just met him for the first time an hour ago. This ability to listen and truly feel someone else’s joy and pain was probably one of the traits that enabled Leon to be such a wonderful storyteller.


The power of Leon Uris’ “Exodus” goes well beyond what he probably ever imagined. Most of the Soviet Jews who had a chance to read this book while still held in Russia have a special connection to the book because it evoked in the reader a reaction or emotion that is hard to describe. Sometimes, it was the unlikely readers who were most affected. A small troupe of the underground Leningrad Jewish Theater was preparing to travel to Riga for a performance that had been rehearsed for the past two years. Two or three “magnificent concert halls” for 80, or maybe even 100, people were booked with enormous difficulties, hand-made costumes were packed, and the theater troupe was ready. It so happened that the entire group was detained at the railroad station under some foolish pretext and had to spend next few days in prison – just enough time for all the arrangements to go sour. By pure chance, one of the performers either smuggled in or received in a daily package a copy “Exodus”. A bored-to-death prison guard agreed not to confiscate and destroy the book if the detainee allowed him to borrow it for a night.

I was told that the next morning the guard returned the book and said ”I do not think it is all true what the book says, but even if only half is true, you all have a good reason to go through all this trouble for your cause.” In such a profoundly anti-Semitic country as Russia, where the police was especially subjected to constant anti-Jewish propaganda under the guise of anti-Zionist education it is nothing short of a miracle that “Exodus”, in one night, even if for just one person, was able to reverse centuries of history and countless hours of brainwashing.

Despite being a world-famous author, I remember Mr. Uris as being very down to earth, very sociable and very understanding of our precarious situation. He was very warm and friendly, and not at all condescending or pitiful as some of our Western friends that have visited in the past had been. On his trip to Russia, Mr. Uris brought with him three boxes of paperback copies of “Exodus” and personally signed them to all the B’NAI BRITH members in Leningrad. He did the same with the B’NAI BRITH members of the two other lodges that existed in the former USSR at that time – Moscow and Riga.

I was privileged to exchange letters with Mr. Uris throughout the past 15 or so years. He was always very responsive and diligent in his response. In June 2000 we had made plans to meet up and reminisce – I was able to get my hands on a copy of a videotape made during his visit to Leningrad in 1989 and was planning to deliver a copy personally during my trip to NY City. A couple of days before the visit Mr. Uris called and asked to reschedule the trip due to his ailing health. We tried to reschedule my visit a few times after that, but it never seemed to work out. Though I wish I could have expressed my gratitude to Mr. Uris in person before he passed away, I have a feeling he died knowing that he has done a great service to the world Jewry. The success of his books around the world, the trouble some people went through to read his books, the personal narratives people like me were lucky to share with him – all serve as a testament to Leon’s greatness as an author and as an inspiration to many, many people. Mr. Uris will forever live through his books in the minds of millions of readers, and he will forever live in the hearts of people like myself who had the honor of meeting him personally.

July 2003