Re: [Salon] How the Russia-Ukraine crisis is playing out thousands of miles away, in Israel - Israel News

Tom wrote: Todd, quite a reach to bring into this discussion an attack on National Review and William F. Buckley, Jr. Par for the course.

Like Bill Polk, who was a friend, and I believe I can say, mentor, and intellectual predecessors to Bill, like Hannah Arendt and Clausewitz, taught, “history,” the “past," is always relevant to the present, and held that one must get to the “essence,” or “origin,” of political phenomema, to truly understand it. With “history,” to include the “thought,” or “political theory” as ideological origins, which is necessary to understand in any political analysis, as it goes to the essence of political phenomena. That includes a recognition of who brought the particular political phenomena, like Marx/Engels (both long dead), and their ideological successors, brought communism into existence, putting aside internal disagreements of “real” Marxism/Communism, in order to examine the thought of “founding theorists.” With that capable of being shown in a line diagram connecting the different “nodes,” as the term is used in any manual diagramming Information War or COIN by DOD and the RAND Corporation, as the leading “theorists" of each, for "network analysis.” In fact, I was taught this as a Sr. PsyOp NCO and later at the Army JAG School as part of Intelligence Law and related courses I attended there, so don’t blame me for this line of thinking.

In addition, the concept of “daisy-chaining” was brought up in the intell law course, though it is a commonsensical concept to any occupational field, which is how one generation of intell/military officers passes on to the next generation “lessons-learned,” as the phrase is sometimes used. They didn’t admit it there, but that is how the CIA’s practice of “torture” was passed down, from its founding generation to include prominent Nazi doctors named in Stephen Kinzer’s “Poisoner in Chief,” and Annie Jacobsen’s "Operation Paperclip,” to the current CIA generation of torturers as manifested at US Black Sites and Guantanamo. Notwithstanding the protective shield some put up around the CIA with claims that its early history isn’t relevant to its present culture of serial lying, coups, inciting wars, torture, etc.

As I’ve said before, the book "The Triumph of Israel’s Radical Right” lays out a valid method of analysis, Network analysis, for COIN, Information War, and of political movements, of left or right. So the same applies to the ideology/ideologists of what many of its proponents and creators called the “Conservative Movement,” as it came into existence as led by a group of CIA officers founding National Review (with William Casey involved with the financing), whether they were former, or still in service, officers, or at least still carrying out the mission of “Information War.” As they had in places like post-WW II Greece, Italy, France. And who always supported the same tactics in thought, word, and deed of the most extreme right-wing, repressive, parties/governments, they frequently put into power following a CIA/DOD coup, as Willmoore Kendall admired such “good fellows” as Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

But in that, McCarthy and Roy Cohn can be considered the “founders” of the Conservative Movement, as they came before Buckley and Bozell, though not Willmoore Kendall, who was Buckley’s and Bozell’s teacher at Yale, and advisor by accounts I’ve read on their book made central to the initial program of National Review magazine, “McCarthy and his Enemies.” With its authors, and then NR editors, Buckley and Bozell, being the most vehement in their support of McCarthy/Cohn. A line diagram would go from McCarthy to Cohn, with a parallel one going from McCarthy/Kendall, to Buckley/Bozell. With the first line going from Roy Cohn, bypassing Buckley/Bozell (but not Bozell’s grandson who was at the Jan 6 attempted coup), but connecting directly to Trump, with the conjoining of all, including the Straussians of the Harry Jaffa founded Claremont Institute, with Jaffa as a political advisor and speech writer for Barry Goldwater, coming together eventually as “Trumpism” (see “The Republican Workers Party,on the Committee for the Republic's list of “readings,” whiich is quite explicit in its celebration of Trumpism and Straussianism, though excuse me for repeating myself).

In other words, they were part of a “network” of right-wing political actors. And notwithstanding that they may have had some relevant points, given the historical situation, their “solutions” crossed over into and was predicated upon internal, anti-constitutional, repression and “legalistic wordplay” to justify what they were advocating and/or doing in their war against the Constitution, with no “necessity” for what they were doing. But they were in fact doing the opposite than what they claimed by shutting down dissent and dialogue and enabling the Military Industrial Complex as Eisenhower called it, to exponentially grow throughout the 1950s - 1960s, under mostly Republican/Conservative stewardship, to where it was too large to ever scale back, and which we have today on a vastly larger scale to include a state of Perpetual War. Led in its creation by pro-war ideologists who can be seen to have first been concentrated at National Review, supporting the most extreme elements of the US Military, including the USAF founded Rand Corporation, with their copycats in the Democratic Party later following in their footsteps as “Scoop Jackson Democrats.”

But Tom takes exception whenever I suggest that this right-wing ideological history is relevant to today, with Trumpism going full-bore, and Republican’s, especially Trump’s allies, denouncing Biden for not being militaristic enough!!! As if he wants to silence discussion here of "The Origins of Trumpism.” But here is an article, insufficiently critical of course, on the same theme I have been on for years, especially since Tom clued me in on Willmoore Kendall:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-willmoore-kendall-invented-trumpism-198739?page=0%2C1

BLUF: "Liberals shrank from acknowledging this truth. They were blind to the true gravity of the threat facing America. As controversy swirled around his critique, Kendall told the conservative scholar Francis Graham Wilson, “We’ve had a common enemy (though of course not a common quarrel for many years)—the Liberals.”

But to Kendall (and Frank S. Meyer, as I’ve pointed out previously), the "traditional conservative” Russell Kirk was also to be denounced, as the brief except below from the attached file “The Benevolent Sage of Mecosta shows, as well as to be made an object of ridicule by the Straussians Kendall and Meyer, to put the lie to the fiction that “conservatives” aren’t to be criticized. No one was more critical of his fellow conservatives than Willmorre Kendall (except of his friend and ideological mentor, Leo Strauss, as I showed previously with adoring letters from Kendall to Strauss). To Kendall, the “traditional conservatism” of Russell Kirk, and Edmund Burke (though Burke’s name makes for a good “front” for the Israeli settler leader Yoram Hazony, to present his “National Conservative” radical-right ideology under to credulous US conservatives).

But judge for yourself: here is Kendall on Russell Kirk.

pp. 49-51:

Now: let not the contemporary American conservative, especially the young contemporary American conservative who has turned to Mr. Kirk for instruction that will sustain him in his defense of the congressional investigating committees, of, indeed, the whole internal security program, against the never-ending demand of the Liberals that a stop be put to all that sort of thing-let him not, having at first got the impression that Mr. Kirk is himself going to attack the committees, heave a sigh of relief at the foregoing song-and-dance, and embrace this teaching of the Benevolent Sage of Mecosta. It is, let me assure him, a false teaching, which reflects at every point Mr. Kirk's ambivalence and hesitations on a matter on which there can, for conservatives who mean business about their conservatism, be no compromise, either in practice or in theory, with their opponents. And it is false for the following reasons:

First, the ground Kirk takes up in order to extend his tardy and reluctant blessing to the internal security program is exactly that to which the Liberals, back during Korean war days, finally retreated in order to call off their direct attack on the program: We are up against a relentless and resourceful enemy, the World Communist movement, which is prepared to use against us, amongst other aggressive weapons, that of internal subversion; apparently that weapon can be turned only with such counter-weapons as the loyalty-program, legislative investigations, etc., which, accordingly, be come necessary to our survival and, qua necessary but of course only insofar as necessary (wherefore henceforth we shall attack the program only indirectly, through the Courts), may go forward with our acquiescence. The tacit premise, shockingly immoral on the face of it, is that we are justified in doing whatever is called for us to survive; and the clear implication, where the argument is used in connection with the internal security program, is that the latter can be justified on no other grounds. Now: the argument from survival is, let us be clear, always and everywhere a Liberal argument; the Liberals, hav ing nothing to die for, must survive coute que coute, must therefore go along with whatever appears to contribute to survival (including, as we shall see, a foreign policy that subordinates both honor and the national interest to the keeping of a tenuous, but presumably satisfactory from the standpoint of survival, peace). No conservative has any business being caught, dead even, using such an argument; the conservative's clear obligation is, rather, to repudiate the argument wherever, and in whatever form, it turns up. He will, by doing so, strengthen the case he can make out for the internal security program, and for the other conservative interests that are threatened by current Liberal interpolations of the First Amendment.

b) There is a second emphasis in the foregoing line of argument

(and, on beyond that, still a third), which is difficult to square with his protestation, elsewhere in the book we are considering, that he and the Liberals are, so to speak, as oil and water, namely: the contention, half-explicit half tacit but certainly there, that if there are disloyal Americans we are ourselves, somehow, to blame; had we but made our country lovelier, our disloyal Americans would have loved it more, and would have been loyal Americans; there is, moreover, a happier time coming, off in the future, when having made our country lovelier we shall no longer have any loyalty problem, thus no longer have any need for the sort of thing associated with the internal security program.

On Feb 13, 2022, at 9:20 AM, Tom Pauken <twpauken@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Todd, quite a reach to bring into this discussion an attack on National Review and William F. Buckley, Jr. Par for the course. Tom Pauken

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2022, at 7:57 AM, Todd Pierce via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:

I might have mentioned this before but on a trip to Russia in 2019 sponsored by Sharon Tennison’s "Center for Citizen Initiatives” organization, https://ccisf.org, which I highly recommend for people, I traveled to Krasnodar with an Israeli citizen who told me how normal travel to Russia was to Israelis, and vice versa, with business, tourism, and family visits all routine. Yet implicit in a lot of anti-Russia, pro-US war propaganda, is that Russia is “anti-semitic,” relying upon both the pre-Bolshevik past, and Stalin’s repression of Jews, adn then Soviet restrictions on immigration to Israel, along with most other countries of the world, which must be seen in the context of the Cold War (for you obtuse “Cold Warriors,” that is not a defense of the USSR, speaking as a one-time opponent of the USSR in “leftish” MN where that wasn’t necessarily popular).

That aside, this is informative on a number of levels, particularly as we prepare to incinerate parts or all of both Ukraine and Russia, given the nature of the “American Way of War” (see Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, . . . )
Quote:

“We see what Russia is doing as a clear violation of Ukrainian people's rights,” says Zharova, referring to the latest flare-up in tensions between the two countries following a large Russian troop buildup along their shared border.”

This goes to “perception” as the same can, and should be, said of the "flare-up in tensions between the two countries following a large" Ukrainian troop buildup along the border of the ethnic Russian area of Ukraine, leading to a reciprocal action by Russia, as “reciprocity” is what characterizes political violence (war), as Clausewitz observed 2 centuries ago.

But this is also instructive on another level, which is the use of the term “Russian,” to describe “immigrants from the former Soviet-bloc countries,” when what is wished is to foment hostility toward Russia as the current target of the US Military Industrial . . . Complex. Or to demonize a rival politician, even, or especially, when they deserve demonization, but for other issues. Like Trump being demonized for his collaboration with what were so many “Jewish Russians” as Oligarchs or as Organized Crime figures, from the Jewish immigrant enclave of Brighton Beach in Brooklyn he met through his mentor Roy Cohn. Or from Israel, or those who stayed behind in Russia or Ukraine, all part of his “network,” and Netanyahu’s and and other Radical Right Israelis. This isn’t about “Jewishness,” but about “Radical Right” politics, and the Far-Right networks they unite.

This statement applies even more to the US: “Most Israelis don’t know how to differentiate between immigrants from the former Soviet-bloc countries,” says Feldman, 44, a production manager in a green-energy company. “As far as they’re concerned, we’re all ‘Russians.’"

So even amongst Israeli “Russians,” perceptions differ based on “regional origins,” not ethnic, as seen here:

“Although he is not a big fan of Putin, Russian-born Leonid Rabin, who immigrated to Israel in 1993, says he fully supports “Russia’s right to defend its republics.”

"An employee of the Mega supermarket chain, he is convinced that Russia wants to avoid war. “They have absolutely no reason to invade Ukraine, and they’ve already made that clear,” says the 61-year-old. “It’s just a shame that the Ukrainians are trying to provoke them.”

"Daniel Krivoshapov, who is also pro-Russia, says he still can’t forgive the Ukrainians for collaborating with the Nazis in World War II. The fact that the country now has a Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, hasn’t changed his thinking. “To this day, the Ukrainians treat Stepan Bandera as a hero,” says Krivoshapov, 55, referring to the Ukrainian nationalist who was aligned with Nazi Germany.”

So it could accurately be said, if one wished to, that those Americans desirous of war against Russia, on the supposed behalf of Ukraine, are “constructively anti-semitic,” wishing implicitly to “finish the job” begun in 1941.

But the close relationship of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump also reveals something else which Republicans and Conservatives may not want to admit, which is that Trump has roots in the very founding the 1950’s, and successive, Conservative Movement, going right back to its founding by McCarthyite apologists of National Review magazine. Any disagreeement today between Trumpites, and “Never-Trumpites,” would more correctly be seen as the disagreements which arose between Stalin and Trotsky, or even more, between the Nazi leaders who in charge of the Night of the Long Knives, and their victims, though in the USA, we seldom (if ever?) resort to outright murder.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/19/roy-cohn-donald-trump-documentary-228144/

While Machiavelli is shared across ideological divides, as Leo Strauss and Carl Schmittt made clear in their writings, he is of particular interest to fascists as a foundational “thinker,” along with Thomas Hobbes,” which adds extra meaning to this quote:

"Cohn, however, preferred a different comparison. “If you can get Machiavelli as a lawyer,” he once said, “you’re certainly no fool of a client.”

And no surprise in this, on ideological grounds: "Trump, along with New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, TV personality Barbara Walters, attorney Alan Dershowitz, conservative columnists William Safire and William F. Buckley and others, testified on Cohn’s behalf as a character witness."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-the-russia-ukraine-crisis-is-playing-out-in-israel-1.10599363?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=breaking-news&utm_content=ebf64f5c11 <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-the-russia-ukraine-crisis-is-playing-out-in-israel-1.10599363?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=breaking-news&utm_content=ebf64f5c11>

How the Russia-Ukraine Crisis Is Playing Out Thousands of Miles Away, in Israel

Over 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union live in Israel, and many are concerned about another war breaking out between Russia and Ukraine. Loyalties, however, aren’t as straightforward as you might imagine

Judy Maltz </misc/writers/WRITER-1.4969107>Feb. 8, 2022
Born in Ukraine, Anna Zharova moved to Israel 22 years ago. Like many new immigrants, she focused on learning Hebrew, making new friends and integrating into Israeli society – and naturally lost interest in what was happening in her country of birth.

That all changed eight years ago when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula <https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/where-is-crimea-anyway-1.5327748>, sparking the most serious East-West crisis since the Cold War.

“When that happened, I said: ‘I can no longer stay on the sidelines,’” recounts the 41-year-old, “and I have been active ever since.”

Zharova, who worked for many years for the Jewish Agency as an expert on informal education, is the co-founder and CEO of the Israeli-Ukrainian Alliance, an organization that promotes social, cultural and business relations between the two countries.

She also co-founded Israeli Friends of Ukraine, a group that has organized protests outside the Russian Embassy and provided humanitarian aid to Ukrainian victims of the conflict. In recent years, it has also organized Ukrainian cultural fairs in Israel.

“We see what Russia is doing as a clear violation of Ukrainian people's rights,” says Zharova, referring to the latest flare-up in tensions between the two countries following a large Russian troop buildup along their shared border.

“Right now, we’re trying to figure out how we can spread the word and sway public opinion in Israel,” she adds. The Israeli government has thus far been playing a delicate balancing act, trying to avoid taking sides. Last week, the Ukrainian ambassador to Israel was called into the Foreign Ministry for an official rebuke after he accused Foreign Minister Yair Lapid of sharing “Russian propaganda.” <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-rebukes-ukrainian-ambassador-over-criticizing-lapid-s-propaganda-on-russia-1.10594477>
Vyacheslav (“Slava”) Feldman, who immigrated to Israel from Ukraine in 2004, is another co-founder of Israeli Friends of Ukraine. Like Zharova, he effectively cut himself off from Ukraine after moving to Israel. But he says the invasion of Crimea, and the violent crackdown against pro-Western Ukrainian protesters that preceded it, awakened his sense of identity with his birthplace.

“Most Israelis don’t know how to differentiate between immigrants from the former Soviet-bloc countries,” says Feldman, 44, a production manager in a green-energy company. “As far as they’re concerned, we’re all ‘Russians.’ My pro-Ukrainian activism was partly a response to that.”

Like Zharova, Feldman recently added a Ukrainian flag to his Facebook profile in an act of solidarity with his homeland.

New immigrants from Ukraine arriving at Ben Gurion Airport in December 2014, the year the Russians invaded Crimea.Credit: GIL COHEN-MAGEN / ADL / AFP
The Putin effect

More than 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union live in Israel today, the vast majority of them from Russia and Ukraine. According to rough estimates, there are close to 400,000 immigrants in each group, with the Ukrainian-born immigrants outnumbering their Russian-born counterparts by a small margin. Per capita, it is likely no other country is home to as many immigrants from these two countries as Israel is, with many living in the coastal cities of Haifa, Bat Yam and Ashdod.

Although the Russia-Ukraine conflict is playing out thousands of miles away, it remains personal for many of these immigrants.

It used to be easier to figure out who was on which side. The Russian immigrants sided with Russia, and the Ukrainian immigrants with Ukraine. That was true at least for the old-timers – those who had arrived in Israel during the huge immigration wave of the 1990s.

But in the past few years, notes Zharova, this has become less pronounced because of the so-called “Putin aliyah” – opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin <https://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/TAG-vladimir-putin-1.5599265> who have been fleeing Russia and who hold no emotional attachment to their birth country.

“You’ll find that those who came on aliyah from Russia many years ago tend to support Putin,” she says. “They like his muscle-flexing. But the newer arrivals, who by and large belong to the intelligentsia, are much more likely to side with Ukraine.”

Take Arkady Mayofis, for instance. The founder of a popular independent television network in Siberia, he escaped to Israel five years ago after his enterprise was closed down by the Russian government and he was threatened with arrest. Since moving to Israel, Mayofis says he has been trying to influence public opinion among Russian-speaking Israelis through his large Facebook following.

“Ukraine needs as much support as it can get, as Russia has become extremely aggressive,” says Mayofis, 60, who recently set up a new business of food gifts from Israel.

And yet, he laments, many of his acquaintances – including members of his own family – remain unconvinced. “They get their information from Russian television,” he explains. “I’ve come to realize it’s best not to bring it up with them.”

It would not be the first time a Russia-Ukraine conflict has turned a Jewish family on itself. Feldman, for example, has stopped speaking to his uncle, who lives in Russia.

“Once he started accusing me of supporting child killers, I cut off all contact,” he relays. “These people are completely brainwashed, and it’s all because they watch Russian TV. I, for one, stopped watching it 15 years ago.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin gesturing during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron in Moscow yesterday.Credit: THIBAULT CAMUS - AFP
‘Never-ending war’

Although he is not a big fan of Putin, Russian-born Leonid Rabin, who immigrated to Israel in 1993, says he fully supports “Russia’s right to defend its republics.”

An employee of the Mega supermarket chain, he is convinced that Russia wants to avoid war. “They have absolutely no reason to invade Ukraine, and they’ve already made that clear,” says the 61-year-old. “It’s just a shame that the Ukrainians are trying to provoke them.”

Daniel Krivoshapov, who is also pro-Russia, says he still can’t forgive the Ukrainians for collaborating with the Nazis in World War II. The fact that the country now has a Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, hasn’t changed his thinking. “To this day, the Ukrainians treat Stepan Bandera as a hero <https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/in-ukraine-hundreds-march-with-torches-in-annual-tribute-to-nazi-collaborator-1.9420221>,” says Krivoshapov, 55, referring to the Ukrainian nationalist who was aligned with Nazi Germany.

Referring to Putin as “a man – not a woman,” Krivoshapov says that during a recent trip to Russia, after being away for many years, he was impressed by how much the quality of life has improved there. “Putin behaves like a landlord – a good landlord,” he says.

Krivoshapov has paid a price for his allegiances. “I used to have a group of friends I’d get together with every weekend,” he says. “We’d go on trips together and have meals together. But many of them are pro-Ukrainian, so we’ve lost touch.”

Janna Ruderko, 65, moved to Israel 10 years ago from a rural region in the south of Russia. Her father was a Ukrainian non-Jew (“a real Ukrainian,” as she puts it), her mother a Russian Jew. She’s unabashedly pro-Russia.

“It used to be that the Ukrainians hated Jews,” she says. “Now it’s the Russians they hate. And it’s very difficult for me to hear all the awful things they say about the Russians.”

A tank of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is seen during military drills at a training ground in the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine, earlier this week.Credit: UKRAINIAN ARMY GENERAL STAFF/R
Exhausted by war

To be sure, relations between the rival camps in Israel are nowhere near as tense as they were eight years ago when the war erupted in Crimea. At that time, recounts Shimon Briman <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-how-israel-will-suffer-if-russia-invades-ukraine-1.10599376>, there were demonstrations outside the Russian and Ukrainian embassies in Tel Aviv, workers were getting fired for being on the wrong side, families were splitting apart, and social media was ablaze.

“It’s nothing like that right now,” he says.

An immigrant from the Ukrainian border city of Kharkiv, Briman was working at the time as the Israel editor of a New York-based, Russian-language newspaper. So strong was his allegiance to Ukraine, he recounts, that he refused to publish a column written by his Crimean-born, pro-Russian cousin, trashing it as “pro-Putin propaganda.”

Briman, 50, has since moved on and now works as the Israel liaison for Ukrainian Jewish Encounter, an organization that seeks to mend and strengthen relations between Ukrainians and Jews.

“People are a bit exhausted by now,” he says, explaining why this new phase of the Russia-Ukraine crisis isn’t sparking the same level of emotion. “After all, eight years have gone by and for many Israelis from the former Soviet Union, it’s starting to feel like a never-ending war.”

A man carrying a portrait of Russian President Vladimir Putin in a T-shirt with an inscription reading "Crimea," in central Moscow.Credit: DMITRY SEREBRYAKOV / AFP
Based on his observations, the longer they live in Israel, the more jaded these immigrants become. “It’s mostly among the newcomers that this is still a burning issue,” he says.

According to Briman’s estimates, some 20 percent of Israel’s Russian-speaking community currently side with Russia, another 20 percent side with Ukraine, and 60 percent – that is to say, the majority – don’t care either way.

“It seems that people have lost their appetite for arguments and care more about what’s happening in Israel than what’s happening over there,” he says.

Igor Gurevich, 67, another immigrant from Kharkiv, represents this apathetic majority. Landing in Israel in 1989, he was part of the first batch of immigrants to arrive on the big aliyah wave that followed the collapse of the communist bloc. Now retired, he worked for many years in the tourism industry in the mixed Jewish-Arab coastal city of Acre.

Asked whether he supports Russia or Ukraine, Gurevich responds: “I support Israel.”

He adds: “What’s going on there is all posturing. The Ukrainians are trying to get money out of the West and have been talking about the threat of war for a long time. But there’s not going to be a war. It’s all a lot of blah-blah-blah.”

--
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon

Re: [Salon] How the Russia-Ukraine crisis is playing out thousands of miles away, in Israel - Israel News - Haaretz.com