especially the Social Democratic party to which Petliura belonged, had a long
tradition of friendly relations with Jewish political activists. Therefore,
the Directory renewed Jewish personal-cultural autonomy, attracted prominent
Jews such as Arnold Margolin and Solomon Goldelman into its government,
appropriated large amounts of money for pogrom victims, and even negotiated
with the famous Zionist leader Vladimir Zhabotinsky about the inclusion of
Jewish police units into its army.
But while Petliura's attitudes towards the Jews might have been
well-intentioned, he was unable to control the otamany (the court-martial and
subsequent execution of Semesenko and other partisan leaders did not improve
the situation), and their dreadful deeds were associated with his government.
And because many Jews considered themselves to be Russians, they found it
easier to lay all the blame for the pogroms on Petliura and the Ukrainians
rather than on Denikin and his Russian generals. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A
History, 1994, pp. 363-364).
The Jewish accusation against Petliura is that maybe he could have done more to prevent the
pogroms. Well, maybe and maybe not. In any case, it is not fair for 60 Minutes to describe a
man who implemented vigorous measures to protect Jewish interests and to stop the pogroms - but
maybe could have done more - as "the man who slaughtered 60,000 Jews." Further insight into
Symon Petliura's attitudes may be gleaned from the Petliura page on the Ukrainian Archive.
(16) Blessing the SS. Mr. Safer informs us that "for this reunion [of Galicia Division veterans
in Lviv recently], Cardinal Lubachivsky, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, gave his
blessing, just as a predecessor did to the SS more than 50 years ago." The blessing of this predecessor was likely the blessing of Bishop Kotsylovskyi and was a blessing of the Galicia
Division, which as we have seen above was not quite the same thing as the German SS.
(17) The immaturity of blaming others. Mr. Safer tells us that "Western Ukraine also has a
long, dark history of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others." Of course, no evidence of
any unusual tendency to blame others is provided - but then the sharing of hatred such as Mr.
Safer's is not an evidentiary matter, but is rather the warm feeling you get when you pass along
a stereotype and your partners in hatred accept the stereotype without asking for evidence.
But we may ask Mr. Safer just what it was that he might have had in mind. Perhaps it was the
Ukrainian Holocaust that Ukraine should accept as its own fault and stop blaming others for?
Perhaps it was the devastation wrought during the Second World War that Ukraine should start
accepting as its own fault? Or maybe it was the eight decades of Moscow's strangulation of
Ukraine's economy that Ukraine has really no one to blame for but itself? Ukraine has so many
such calamities to choose from that it is impossible to guess - perhaps Mr. Safer would be kind
enough to simply tell us precisely which of them he thinks it is that Ukraine should be mature
enough to accept responsibility for having brought upon itself.
(18) Dividing Ukraine. 60 Minutes gave the impression that its story focussed solely on Western
Ukraine, when in fact a portion of it came from Central Ukraine. Rabbi Bleich's full title, for
example, is not "Chief Rabbi for the Ukraine," but rather "Rabbi of Kiev and Ukraine," (where
Kiev is in central Ukraine) and although 60 Minutes gave the impression that he was interviewed
in Lviv, he was in reality interviewed in Kiev. Similarly, while Mr. Safer was in the middle of
interviewing representatives of the Ukrainian Catholic church in Lviv and was saying "The
Cardinal's deputy, Monsignor Dacko, denies traditional anti-Semitism in the Ukraine....", the
viewer was being shown St. Volodymyr's cathedral which unlike Monsignor Dacko was in Kiev and
which unlike Monsignor Dacko is Orthodox rather than Catholic. I suppose that 60 Minutes
committed itself to the scene-setting introduction "... and the West, where we go tonight ...",
and then suppressed the Kiev origin of some of its material so as to give the story the
appearance of having a consistent locale; and perhaps as well 60 Minutes wished to restrict its
smearing to Western Ukrainians so as to promote divisions within the country.
(19) Freedom from slavery is too much freedom (for Ukrainians, anyway). The title of the 60
Minutes broadcast, "The Ugly Face of Freedom" is puzzling. The freedom being referred to must
be the freedom from Russian rule, and so the title suggests that Ukraine would be better off
back within the Russian empire.
But Morley Safer's suggestion is inappropriate for three reasons. First, anti-Semitism is
strong in Russia and weak in Ukraine (Ukraine has no counterpart of either Pamyat or
Zhirinovksy), and so it is unclear how falling back under Russian rule would assist Ukraine in
avoiding anti-Semitism. Second, Ukraine's current problems are more rationally seen as being
the result not of too much freedom, but of too little - specifically, Ukraine's problems are the
result of continuing to be ruled by the old Communist nomenklatura that had originally been
appointed from Moscow and that presently is robbing the country blind while obstructing economic
reform. A weak economy, in turn, affects Ukrainian-Jewish relations by inviting scapegoating
from each group against the other and by promoting Jewish emigration out of Ukraine. Thus, it
is not too much freedom, but rather the absence of freedom from rule by Moscow's appointees that
most stands in the way of good Ukrainian-Jewish relations. Third, it is surprising to hear an
American objecting to freedom from slavery. Some 60 Minutes viewers will notice that Mr. Safer
objects to it on behalf of other people and not on behalf of Americans. I expect that if anyone
were to argue that American anti-Semitism or America's low quality of education or America's
high crime rate is the result of America having broken away from England, Mr. Safer would not
agree. I expect also that if England had been guilty of the horrific crimes against America
that Russia has been guilty of against Ukraine, Mr. Safer would find the suggestion odious. In
fact, Mr. Safer's suggestion is as odious to Ukrainians as would be the suggestion that Israel
would be better off under German rule would be odious to Jews. No, Mr. Safer's suggestion is
more odious - this because Berlin today is not ruled by former Nazis, whereas Moscow today is
ruled by people who just a few years ago were ardent Communists and who today continue to be
ardent imperialists.
CONTENTS:
Preface
The Galicia Division
Quality of Translation
Ukrainian Homogeneity
Were Ukrainians Nazis?
Simon Wiesenthal
What Happened in Lviv?
Nazi Propaganda Film
Collective Guilt
Paralysis of the Comparative
Function
60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Mailbag
A Sense of Responsibility
What 60 Minutes Should Do
PostScript
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Is there any? Of course there is. Anti-Semitism is universal. Ukraine has some, just as does
the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more anti-Semitism in Ukraine than
elsewhere? 60 Minutes said so - as much as said that Ukraine leads the world in anti-Semitism
but failed to provide any evidence of this, and in fact does not seem to be aware of how to go
about obtaining such evidence.
The American Jewish Committee did a better job - it sponsored a survey in 1992 about attitudes
toward Jews in the republics of the former Soviet Union, and its findings do not support 60
Minutes' allegations:
Based on the total of anti-Jewish responses to items appearing in the
questionnaire, the rank order of the states from most hostile to least hostile
toward Jews in 1992 is as follows: Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Lithuania,
Azerbaijan, Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova and Estonia. (Ukrainian Weekly,
June 21, 1992, p. 6)
Worthy of note, too, is that between 1990 and 1992, attitudes toward Jews became more negative
in all of the above republics, with the exception of Ukraine and Moldova, in which two republics
the attitudes became more positive. The failure of Ukraine to rank high on anti-Jewish
responses in this survey should have been noted by 60 Minutes, as should the improvement in
attitudes from 1990 to 1992. Instead of applauding the reality of favorable Ukrainian attitudes
toward Jews, and the reality that they are getting even better, 60 Minutes seemed bent on
encouraging their deterioration.
And, if 60 Minutes had wanted personal testimony concerning Ukrainian attitudes toward Jews to
bolster the dry facts coming from the opinion poll, then it could have consulted any number of
Ukrainian Jews who would have been happy to correct 60 Minutes' biases. The above-mentioned
Iosep Zissels, for example, would have offered observations such as that "There was a time when
the leaders of Pamiat [or "Pamyat" - the Russian anti-Semitic organization] would travel from
Russia to recruit supporters in Ukraine. They didn't find any. We are well aware of this fact"
(Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992, p. 4)
CONTENTS:
Preface
The Galicia Division
Quality of Translation
Ukrainian Homogeneity
Were Ukrainians Nazis?
Simon Wiesenthal
What Happened in Lviv?
Nazi Propaganda Film
Collective Guilt
Paralysis of the Comparative
Function
60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Mailbag
A Sense of Responsibility
What 60 Minutes Should Do
PostScript
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Is there any? Of course there is. Jewish Ukrainophobia is universal. Ukraine has some, just
as does the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more Jewish Ukrainophobia in
Ukraine than elsewhere? Don't ask 60 Minutes - to ask such a question is to violate rules of
political correctness.
One thing missing from the above discussion of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, then, is any mention of
the reciprocal attitude of Jewish Ukrainophobia (or more generally of Jewish phobic responses