Feed aggregator

Here are the abstracts from the latest issue of our Russian Media Analysis newsletter. You can also download the full text PDF version.

This newsletter covers developments up to February 21, 2022. Russian media discussions of Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on February 21, 2022, as well as the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, will be covered in the following issue.

1. HIGHLIGHTS OF PUTIN SPEECH

The key points of Vladimir Putin’s speech on February 21 include the following: Ukraine is preparing for a conflict with Western military support. Ukraine will seek to create nuclear weapons, or potentially get Western assistance to do so. Ukraine joining NATO is just a matter of time. Ukraine in NATO is a “direct threat to Russian security.” The US and NATO have sought not only to arm and train but also to integrate Ukraine’s military. These actions present a threat to Russia. NATO military bases are already present in Ukraine. Previous rounds of NATO expansion have not led to an improvement in relations with Russia, as the West has promised. Russia has unsuccessfully sought to cooperate with the West in various formats. Instead, the West has “cheated” and NATO infrastructure is now on Russia’s doorstep. US missile defense and strike capabilities are expanding and will pose a threat to Russia from Ukrainian territory. The West has “ignored” Russian proposals to resolve the current situation and this will have consequences.

2. PERCEPTION OF US GOALS IN THE CRISIS

Several articles discuss Russian perceptions of what the United States is looking to achieve in the current confrontation between the West and Russia. They focus on US domestic problems and fears of a loss of world domination as reasons that Washington is provoking a confrontation with Russia. They also suggest that the current confrontation is just the culmination of a long-term US plan to weaken Russia. They also argue that the US feels that Russia has little to offer in the way of potential concessions to end the crisis.

3. RUSSIAN GOALS IN THE CONFRONTATION

Several articles discuss Russian goals in the confrontation with the West and what Russia has achieved. Unlike Western analysts, who tend to focus on efforts to stop NATO enlargement or reorient Ukraine, Russian analysts address possibilities such as averting a new European missile crisis or forcing Ukraine to carry out the Minsk agreements. Russian achievements during the confrontation including bringing the US and its European allies to the negotiating table on major security issues, while negative consequences include reinforcing Western unity and creating a more negative perception of Russia in the West.

4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Two authors discuss the potentially dangerous consequences for Russia of a war in Ukraine, while several offer possible solutions to the crisis. Writing from opposing perspectives, a conservative commentator and a liberal former FSB general agree that Russia is not prepared for war in Ukraine and for confrontation with the West. Possible solutions to the crisis focus primarily on the possibility of a neutral Ukraine, though some propose a broader array of confidence-building measures to reduce the extent of confrontation in Europe as a whole.

5. IMPLICATIONS OF US AND EUROPEAN SANCTIONS

Numerous articles in the Russian press discuss and even dismiss the potential implications of US efforts to impose sanctions on Russia. In Gazeta.ru, Anatoliy Akulov analyzes the challenges of US consensus-building among European actors to sanction Nordstream 2. In Topwar.ru, Aleksandr Staver critiques US targeted sanctions against Russia, arguing that they in essence view the children of Russian investors in the UK as hostages. In Izvestiya, Mariya Vasil’eva focuses on the sanctions’ potential impact on the Russian embassies abroad, arms exports, and electronics, among others. In Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kur’er (VPK), Vladimir Eranosyan writes about the challenges that the US faces in making good on its threat to disconnect Russia from SWIFT as well as about the INSTEX system created in the wake of Iran’s disconnect from SWIFT. Finally, in another article in VPK, Vitaliy Orlov writes about how Russia could transition away from the use of the US dollar for exports of Russian armaments abroad.

6. WESTERN FORCE DEPLOYMENTS GARNER RUSSIAN ATTENTION

As the crisis between Ukraine and Russia heats up, Russian authors have been quick to point out new military deployments by Western powers in the region. American deployments to Poland and Slovakia have been of interest, as well as UK support elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Overall, the articles view these deployments as ominous, but also par for the course given the bellicose trajectory of interstate relations in recent months.

7. UKRAINE ARMS FOR WAR

Many articles in the Russian press are reviewing current political and military tensions surrounding Ukraine. Taking a variety of tacks, articles largely focus on the state of the Ukrainian military and its support by Western powers. They encompass details about military equipment and technology transfers, discuss the broader abilities of the Ukrainian armed forces, and launch critical broadsides against Ukraine’s perceived bellicose position relative to Russia and the separatist republics.

8. BELARUS AIDS IN RUSSIA’S MILITARY BUILDUP

Cooperation between Russia and Belarus are a point of interest for several observers, especially as tensions continue to ratchet up with neighboring Ukraine. Belarus and Russia are jointly undertaking combined-arms military exercises in the form of “Union Resolve – 2022,” which some view as a further step away from any putative neutrality by Belarus. Others noted that Belarus has taken a hard line vis-à-vis Ukraine in terms of public declarations of support for Russia’s side, which is a shift from previous years. Finally, a military doctrine for the Russo-Belarusian Union State has been recently approved, which has further underlined the considerable alignment between the two countries.

9. TURKEY AS A MEDIATOR FOR THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

An Izvestiya article interviews Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, who discusses Ankara’s offer to mediate the Russia-Ukraine crisis. While Turkey claims that it is “the only country” that can meet both Russia and Ukraine halfway to find resolution, the ambassador has doubts of Turkey’s impartiality, noting its “well-known military-technical ties with Ukraine.” Moreover, the ambassador suggests that Ankara may not adequately understand the extent of Russia’s grievances. He states, “If our Turkish partners can influence the Ukrainians and encourage them to fulfill the previously-made [Minsk] agreements and obligations, this can be welcomed.”

10. SIVKOV CAUTIONS US ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR

In VPK, Russian commentator Konstantin Sivkov extrapolates from what he alleges to have been a statement made by Gen. David Goldfein about “three steps to destroy Russia.” He concludes that a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia would be fatal for both Russia and the United States—and lead to the dominance of other states in the international system. This, he notes, should force “global and US elites to think—should they free up a “place in the sun” for others?”

11. PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMATION WARFARE

In a February 11 article in Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie (NVO), Yuriy Yur’ev writes about the concept of information warfare as a “component part of hybrid warfare” and traces the evolution of US information warfare concepts, arguing that Russia has lost the initiative to its opponents in this area. In Krasnaya Zvezda, Oleg Martynov discusses the creation in Poland of a cyber defense force. This article traces the evolution of US and NATO concepts in the cyber domain and posits that NATO has long “viewed the cyber sphere as a domain for military action.”

12. NEXUS OF CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS IN HYBRID WARS AND COLOR REVOLUTIONS

In VPK, Konstantin Strigunov focuses on the nexus of criminal and terrorist groups as a potential globalization trend that weakens state governments. He argues that criminal, terrorist, and other groups are also utilized in “non-classical wars” such as hybrid wars and color revolutions.

13. US EXERCISES AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS

VPK and Kommersant discuss US and allied exercises and weapons systems. In Kommersant, Marianna Belen’kaya discusses Western reactions to the Russo-Belarusian Allied Resolve 2022 exercises and Russian commentators’ perspectives on military activities in the region. In VPK, authors discuss US presence in the Mediterranean for the Neptune Strike-2022 exercises, the testing of the joint air-to-ground missile, and US ballistic and cruise missile programs.

14. CHINESE-RUSSIAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Several articles reported on the meetings between presidents Putin and Xi on the sidelines of the Beijing Winter Olympics: the leaders declared that there were no limits to their strategic partnership; they vowed to counter instances of foreign interference in internal affairs; and Beijing announced that it joins Putin in opposing further NATO expansion. While some articles gloat at these new developments, others are more cautious—noting drawbacks and inequities in the alliance in the context of the Ukraine conflict. Another article argues that the US is trying to use Ukraine to drive a wedge between China and Russia.

15. KURIL ISLANDS DEVELOPMENTS; RUSSIAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS

Several articles report on an alleged US Virginia-class submarine incident that occurred near the Kuril Islands on February 12, which the Russian Ministry of Defense characterized as “a gross violation of international law.” According to reports, the submarine entered Russian territorial waters during a planned Russian military exercise, ignored warning messages instructing the vessel to surface, and was chased away by a Russian frigate. Other articles discuss the Japanese-Russian territorial dispute surrounding the South Kuril Islands, and how potential anti-Russian sanctions from Tokyo might affect the bilateral relationship.

16. IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS

Two articles discuss the US decision to reintroduce sanction waivers to Iran in hopes of reviving the nuclear negotiations. In an interview, the Russian Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna notes that this step “should have been taken long ago” but welcomes the decision. A different article questions whether this is enough to save the Iran deal, noting Tehran’s lack of enthusiasm in response to the waivers, and the lack of trust that a diplomatic resolution would be upheld by future US administrations.

Here are the abstracts from the latest issue of our Russian Media Analysis newsletter. You can also download the full text PDF version.

1. The Ukraine Crisis: Views of US-Russia Negotiations

Negotiations between the United States and Russia over the Ukraine-Russia crisis are widely discussed across Russian media, from a variety of angles. Most commentators are in agreement that the United States and its allies are engaging in bad-faith negotiations, given their continued military-technical support for Ukraine, although some note concern with Russian posture. The negotiations themselves are seen as a first step, and meetings with Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as the formal diplomatic response from the United States to Russia over their treaty proposals, are treated in a variety of ways.

2. The Ukraine Crisis: Perceptions of US Strategy

In discussing the current confrontation between the United States and Russia, a number of publications consider causal factors affecting US strategy. The focus is on the impact of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and its effect on US assessments of geopolitical risks and US aggressiveness. The articles also discuss the US predilection for narcissism and double standards. Some analysts do note the clear rejection of a military response by US leadership as leaving open the possibility of a compromise solution.

3. The Ukraine Crisis: Discussion of Russia’s Strategy

Russian media published a number of articles discussing Russian goals and strategy in the Ukraine crisis. Several articles focus on Russia’s need for security guarantees as a key driver of the current crisis. Other articles suggest that Russia’s real concern is not NATO enlargement per se but specifically the placement of NATO military hardware near Russia’s borders. Others suggest that in provoking a crisis now, Russia is reacting to a perception of weakness on the part of the United States in order to push the US into making concessions on Russian security demands.

4. The Ukraine Crisis: Signals of Potential Elite Unease

Two articles highlight the possibility of concerns within the Russian military about how an invasion of Ukraine would play out. The two authors, both well connected with segments of the Russian military and defense industry, suggest that a Russian military intervention in Ukraine could go badly and does not correspond to Russian national interests.

5. The Ukraine Crisis: Reaction to Potential US Sanctions

In Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kur’er (VPK), Vladimir Vasil’yev of the Institute of USA and Canada Studies (ISKRAN) argues that the Russia sanctions bill proposed by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Bob Menendez is “Cold War 2.0 legislation.” Vasil’yev notes that one way to interpret the bill is that it intends sanctions to “speed up and ease the Ukraine’s accession” to NATO. In a Topwar.ru article focused on how sanctions on exports of high technologies to Russia can be incredibly damaging to the Russian economy, Andrey Mitrofanov posits that US sanctions seek to turn Russia into North Korea 2.0.

6. The Ukraine Crisis: Reactions to Western Military Activities and “Information Warfare”

Numerous articles in the Russian press focus on the US deployments to Europe and the shifts in force postures and military activities in the region. Kommersant describes the state of “information warfare” and “hysteria” around Ukraine. Nezavisimaya Gazeta describes the military exercises and troop movements in the region, noting that NATO “assumes Russian aggression against Ukraine, [while] the Russian-Belarusian side [is concerned about] the possibility of NATO provocations that could push Kiev to resolve the problem of Donbass and Luhansk by force. Anton Lavrov, Roman Kretsul, and Andrey Fedorov discuss changes in the US force posture in Europe and quote a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs official as saying that some can be regarded as a “menacing maneuver.”

7. The Ukraine Crisis: Military Aid to Ukraine

More than 10 articles report on training and military aid to Ukraine, including new shipments from the US and UK, as well as transfers of US weapons from the Baltics, UAVs from Turkey, and artillery shells from the Czech Republic. While one article suggests that the acquisition of these new capabilities proves Ukraine’s intent to invade the Donbas, most are skeptical that these weapons provide Ukraine with any new meaningful capability.

8. The Ukraine Crisis: Ukrainian Military Developments

Several articles report on Ukrainian military developments “which confirm the fact that it is preparing for aggression against the [Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics].” Two articles report on movements of the 58th Separate Motorized Infantry and 53rd and 54th Separate Motorized Brigades, transport of portable demining units, military exercises near Crimea, and Zelensky’s decree to increase the size of armed forces by 100,000. A Topwar.ru article argues that Ukraine has been preparing to take back the Donbas by force since 2014. A fourth article reports on the low morale of Ukrainian troops.

9. Reactions to NATO Development Plans

Several articles address how NATO is planning to develop in the near to medium term and the threat that the organization’s plans pose to Russia. The topics include the expansion of NATO’s zone of operations to new territories, such as the Middle East, and new domains, such as space. NATO enlargement and its aggressive militarism, in the context of an overwhelming conventional force superiority over Russia, are highlighted as the main threats to Russia. The possibility of an unwanted NATO-Russia war being caused by Ukraine is also mentioned.

10. Scandinavia and NATO Enlargement

Yevgeny Fedorov, writing in Topwar.ru, discusses the possibility of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. He argues that even though the two countries recently reiterated that they are not currently interested in joining the alliance, they retain the right to join at any point in the future while remaining so closely integrated with the alliance that membership would be merely a formal change in status.

11. Concerns About Turkish Expansionism

An article in VPK discusses how Turkey is increasingly being used by the US and UK as a proxy to contain Russia on its southern flank and to pursue expansionist ambitions in Central Asia. The article argues that despite some tensions with its NATO allies, Turkey remains firmly committed to the alliance’s strategy to weaken Russia by forcing it to defend all of its borders and to impact its economy by creating alternative energy sources for Europe.

12. Potential Russian Military Development in the Caribbean

Two articles discuss potential Russian military developments in Caribbean states-namely, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. A Topwar.ru article argues that because NATO is “increasingly, unceremoniously settling in close to Russia’s borders from the Barents to the Black Sea,” including US missile deployment, Russia is forced to respond in kind. A Novye Izvestiya article argues that while US influence on Venezuela and Cuba may prevent them from being viable hosts of Russian military bases, Nicaragua may be a more suitable option. Both articles acknowledge the challenges associated with challenging US hegemony in the region.

13. US Support for Japan’s Military Goals

Russian commentators continue to be concerned about a further deepening of the US-Japanese security relationship, arguing that Japan’s military-strategic plans to reemerge as an important player in East Asia have led it to follow the US lead on geopolitical issues elsewhere. Writing in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Valery Kistanov explores the question of why Japan wishes to become a military power, and what it is willing to sacrifice in order to achieve this. Although suspicious of Japan’s claims to be concerned about national security, he nevertheless writes that it is necessary to take this as-is and focus on the fact that a considerable military buildup is in its early stages.

14. Chinese-Russian Relations as a ‘Biathlon’

The Olympic Games in Beijing may bring about renewed and strengthened diplomatic ties, according to Yuri Tavrovsky, the head of the Expert Council of the Russian-Chinese Committee for Friendship, Peace, and Development. Writing in Moskovskii Komsomolets, Tavrovsky argues that upcoming meetings between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in the context of the games are a perfect venue for continuing down a line of close cooperation between the two at a personal level.

15. The CSTO in Central Asia Versus NATO

The deployment of CSTO forces into Kazakhstan during political troubles earlier in January has led to some Russian analysts to reappraise the organization. One article in Gazeta.ru by Viktor Sokirko and Dmitry Mayorov attempted to assess the CSTO’s military capabilities at the alliance level. They argue that in fact the CSTO, while inferior to NATO in general, is more than capable of maintaining order in Central Asia and ensuring a form of moderate collective defense. This is more than sufficient, given that the CSTO has very different goals from NATO in the first place, according to the authors.

16. Russian-Iranian Cooperation and Reactions to JCPOA Negotiations

Topwar.ru provides an update on the JCPOA negotiations and expressed criticism of the US position in the talks, highlighting Russian opposition to artificial deadlines. An article in Ekspert about the recent visit by Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi to Moscow highlights areas of Russo-Iranian cooperation, and says that the visit was aimed at securing Russian support in the face of US pressure for additional concessions from Iran as part of JCPOA negotiations.

Here are the abstracts from the latest issue of our Russian Media Analysis newsletter. You can also download the full text PDF version.

1. Russian perceptions of the NATO threat

Several articles describe Russian perceptions of NATO and the threat that it poses to Russian security. They focus on the role of the alliance as a weapon of US domination in Europe, the threat posed to Russia by NATO’s previous expansion to the east, and the possibility that it could expand further to include Sweden, Finland, or Georgia. These Western actions can be countered either by NATO and the United States providing binding security guarantees to Russia or by Russia extending its security border to the Soviet Union’s previous western border in Belarus and Ukraine.

2. Karaganov argues that NATO is a metastasizing “cancer” that needs to be “limited territorially”

On January 19, the Russian newspaper Argumenty i Fakty interviewed Sergey Karaganov, dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, on the state of Russia’s relations with the US and NATO. In the interview, Karaganov also discusses Russia’s intentions in Ukraine, contrasts Russia with the Soviet Union, and discusses potential steps that Russia could take in response to the ongoing crisis.

3. US-Russia diplomatic engagements

During this reporting period, recent diplomatic efforts are frequently mentioned. These include US-Russia talks in Geneva, NATO-Russia talks in Brussels, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) talks in Vienna, and a phone conversation between Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Blinken. Several articles discuss Russia’s motivation behind the talks, which followed unrealistic demands for security guarantees and largely ended in stalemate. They also discuss what lies ahead.

4. Plans for US sanctions against Russia

Several articles highlight potential US plans to further strengthen sanctions against Russia. Draft US plans to impose personal sanctions against top Russian officials are dismissed as unlikely. However, the possibility of serious measures to limit interactions with Russian financial institutions and to prohibit the transfer of a wide range of technology to Russia (and the use of that technology by Russia) is taken more seriously. Russia could respond with highly disruptive countermeasures and may see the most severe measures as, in effect, a declaration of war.

5. The West prepares for conflict

Russian media published extensive discussions of statements being made by Western officials in response to Russia’s deployment of forces near Ukraine. These articles focus on the deployment of additional NATO forces to Eastern Europe, reports about the evacuation of Western and Russian embassy personnel from Kyiv, and US efforts to find alternative sources of natural gas for EU member states that would be engaged in a conflict with Russia.

6. NATO, Russia-Belarus military exercises

One article discusses NATO’s upcoming Cold Response exercise, which will take place in late March and early April and will include 35,000 military personnel from 28 states. The article notes that “such large-scale exercises as Cold Response-2022 have not been held in Norway since the 1980s.” Earlier in the year, on February 10–20, Russia and Belarus will hold joint military exercises, titled “Allied Resolve.” Two articles discuss the size, scope, and motivation of the maneuvers. A fourth article reports that the head of Poland’s National Security Bureau requested that NATO hold military exercises in the region in response to the joint Russian-Belarusian exercises.

7. Nuclear risk reduction and potential Western reactions to Belarusian nukes

Several articles cover nuclear issues. Krasnaya Zvezda focuses on Russia’s views on the importance of the P5 Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races, and the importance to Russia of the “inadmissibility of any war between nuclear states, whether nuclear or with the use of conventional weapons.” Aleksey Poplavskiy in Gazeta.ru offers Russian expert commentary on potential Western reactions to the unlikely placement of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus. (The December 6–16, 2021, issue of Russian Media Analysisaddressed this latter issue.)

8. Options for new Russian missile bases as competition grows

As geopolitical competition increases, Russian authors are suggesting possibilities for new staging points that can counter perceived NATO encroachment. Two articles in Topwar.ru point out the potential for sites in Cuba and Serbia, respectively, as states that may be particularly open to hosting new forward-deployed arms. While Cuba is seen with a glow of Soviet-era nostalgia, the Balkan case represents a more novel vision in any future arms race.

9. Western information warfare against Russia

In Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kur’er (VPK), Sergey Korotkov argues that the US (and the West) are leaders in disinformation and have used this in the past to create a justification for wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia. The article posits that “the US views the internet as the main instrument of conducting hybrid warfare to achieve global domination in the global information space” and “aggressive propaganda in the form of disinformation campaigns is conducted at the state level and is a component of the ‘systematic deterrence of Russia.’” Separately, an article in Topwar.ru offers perspectives on a January 6 Atlantic Council event that featured retired general Wesley Clark, who argued that Putin is a war criminal and that Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine.

10. Military aid to Ukraine

Many articles have focused on the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, looking specifically at new plans for military aid being developed by NATO countries to assist Ukraine in light of a potential Russian military action. Several articles focus on aid from the UK, which is stated to be moving faster and with greater qualitative effectiveness than other aid plans at present. Other authors review US military aid being debated in Congress as well. In general, the articles frame UK and US military aid as a means of ratcheting up the local threat against Russia, further destabilizing the regional security environment, and further cementing Ukraine’s de facto position as a quasi-member of NATO and the broader Western security architecture.

11. Tumult and fragmentation in Ukrainian domestic politics

The domestic travails of Ukraine were recently noted by two Russian authors, each arguing that the internal politics of the country were riven by scandal, faction, and dissent. Both articles are provocative: one, in Topwar.ru, asks why Ukrainian statehood had ever even been considered; the other, in VPK, drives home the point that Western efforts to aid Ukraine are not always clearly appreciated by Kyiv.

12. How future wars will be fought

Two articles by noted military specialists address the question of how wars will be fought in the future. Aleksandr Khramchikhin suggests that UAVs are likely to become the most important weapon in future wars, because they would be virtually impossible to eliminate and could be used to eliminate enemy air defense infrastructure. Viktor Murakhovsky is, on the whole, more skeptical about the dominance of technology in future warfare. The ineffectiveness of high-tech warfare in Afghanistan and Yemen suggests that future warfare may not be as technology dependent as visionaries on both sides believe.

13. Concerns about Turkish geopolitical designs

Multiple articles in Topwar.ru look at the geopolitical place of Turkey as well as ethnic ties across the Turkic peoples of Eurasia. Focusing on the potential for military cooperation along a pan-Turkic basis, as well as the prospects for major military expansion by Turkey in the Black Sea and Mediterranean, the articles add to a growing sense of paranoia about the prospect of alternative regional power blocs based on ethnic relations.

14. US accused of stirring up extremist groups in the North Caucasus

According to an article by Evgeny Fedorov in Topwar.ru, the United States is seeking to undermine internal Russian stability by way of encouraging extremist movements in the North Caucasus. Fedorov argues that American support in organizing and propagating Islamic extremist movements over the internet has grown in recent years, with the goal of provoking protest and confrontation between the authorities and local radicals. Fedorov highlights a new memorial set up by a local extremist organization, 1ADAT, as a new means of American meddling in internal affairs.

15. Alarm about new Kazakhstan biosafety-level-4 lab

Several articles in the Russian media and on online sites discuss the planned construction of a BSL-4 laboratory in Kazakhstan. Articles in Topwar.ru and Izvestiya argue that reference labs and biosafety facilities in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are an enormous cause for concern for Russia because they are nontransparent and potentially unaccountable facilities conducting dangerous work close to the Russian border. While both of these articles include disinformation, they also exemplify the perspectives of Russian military analysts about CTR-supported installations in Eurasia.

Vicious antisemitic attacks against Jewish students on campus are certainly nothing new, but one particular incident led to a potential tool that could both help protect Jewish students and offer acknowledgment of their Zionist identity.

Let's take a look back.

In 2016, San Francisco State University was rated 10th on The Algemeiner's List of the US and Canada’s Worst Campuses for Jewish Students, based on the ongoing disruption of activities and deliberate intimidation of the students.  One of the incidents that earned SFSU their inclusion on The Algemeiner's list was their response to an appearance by the then-Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat when he came to speak. Anti-Israel students disrupted the speech.

But it was more than just a disruption.
And it resulted not only being included on a list -- it led to a lawsuit. 

According to a Lawfare Project press release, the disruption in 2016 demonstrated that the administration of San Francisco State University itself was part of the problem:

The lawsuit was triggered following the alleged complicity of senior university administrators and police officers in the disruption of an April, 2016, speech by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat. At that event organized by SF Hillel, Jewish students and audience members were subjected to genocidal and offensive chants and expletives by a raging mob that used bullhorns to intimidate and drown out the Mayor’s speech and physically threaten and intimidate members of the mostly-Jewish audience. At the same time, campus police – including the chief – stood by, on order from senior university administrators who instructed the police to “stand down” despite direct and implicit threats and violations of university codes governing campus conduct.

The civil rights lawsuit was brought by The Lawfare Project the following year against then-president Leslie Wong along with several other university officials. The lawsuit alleged that the situation had deteriorated to the point that “Jews are often afraid to wear Stars of David or yarmulkes on campus, and regularly text their friends to describe potential safety issues and suggest alternate, often circuitous, routes to campus destinations.”

In March 2019, California State University public university system settled.

As part of the settlement, SFSU agreed to the following:

• Public statement: Issue a statement affirming that "it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity";
• Coordinator of Jewish Student Life: "Hire a Coordinator of Jewish Student Life within the Division of Equity & Community Inclusion" and dedicate suitable office space for this position;
• External review of policies: "Retain an independent, external consultant to assess SFSU’s procedures for enforcement of applicable CSU system-wide anti-discrimination policies and student code of conduct";
• Independent investigation of additional complaints: "SFSU will, for a period of 24 months, assign all complaints of religious discrimination under either E.O. 1096 or E.O. 1097 to an independent, outside investigator for investigation";
• Funding viewpoint diversity: "SFSU will allocate an additional $200,000 to support educational outreach efforts to promote viewpoint diversity (including but not limited to pro-Israel or Zionist viewpoints) and inclusion and equity on the basis of religious identity (including but not limited to Jewish religious identity)"; and
• Campus mural: Engage in the SFSU process to allocate "space on the SFSU campus for a mural to be installed under the oversight of the Division of Equity & Community Inclusion, paid for by the University, that will be designed by student groups of differing viewpoints on the issues that are the subject of this litigation to be agreed by the parties (including but not limited to Jewish, pro-Israel,  and/or Zionist student groups, should such student groups elect to participate in the process)."

That first condition -- San Francisco State University publicly acknowledging that "for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity" -- was an unprecedented recognition of the importance of Zionism to Jewish identity. 

Just imagine if universities across the country followed this example in recognition of Zionism. It could be the academic equivalent of the legislative campaign to have the boycott of Israel made illegal in all 50 states.

When I asked The Lawfare Project about the potential to establish these guarantees at other universities around the country, they responded that

we think Jewish students will recognize the need to fight for the same guarantees we’ve received in our settlement agreement with SFSU. We also believe that our success will serve as fertile ground upon which Jewish students can begin their journey to fight for their rights on campus. This is not something that should require legal enforcement. Take, for example, the stand taken in 2019 by Martha Pollak, president of Cornell University, in response to the demand by JVP to divest from Israel: BDS unfairly singles out one country in the world for sanction when there are many countries around the world whose governments’ policies may be viewed as controversial. Moreover, it places all of the responsibility for an extraordinarily complex geopolitical situation on just one country and frequently conflates the policies of the Israeli government with the very right of Israel to exist as a nation, which I find particularly troublesome. [emphasis added]

Pollak not only took a stand against BDS. She publicly stated her personal rejection of BDS and went beyond vague appeals to diversity and respect for ideas on campus.

But how many university presidents have been willing to deal head-on with the problem of Zionophobia on campus?
What are the chances of other universities adopting the measures in the settlement?
For that matter, has San Francisco State University really learned its lesson?

Apparently not.

In September 2020, the terrorist Leila Khaled was invited to speak at SFSU. Khaled participated in the hijacking of TWA Flight 840 from Rome to Tel Aviv in August 1969. The following year she took part in the hijacking of an El Al flight from Amsterdam to New York City.

So how did the president of SFSU, Lynn Mahoney, respond in light of the lawsuit settlement?

Let me be clear: I condemn the glorification of terrorism and use of violence against unarmed civilians. I strongly condemn antisemitism and other hateful ideologies that marginalize people based on their identities, origins or beliefs.

At the same time, I represent a public university, which is committed to academic freedom and the ability of faculty to conduct their teaching and scholarship without censorship.

Mahoney went on to pay lip service to the now-required recognition of the Zionist identity of the university's students:

My conversations with SF Hillel and Jewish student leaders have enhanced my appreciation for the deeply painful impact of this upcoming presenter, as well as past campus experiences. I understand that Zionism is an important part of the identity of many of our Jewish students. The university welcomes Jewish faculty and students expressing their beliefs and worldviews in the classroom and on the quad, through formal and informal programming. [emphasis added]

Prof. Judea Pearl, professor of computer science and statistics at UCLA and president of The Daniel Pearl Foundation, was unimpressed by Mahoney's attempt to reconcile welcoming a terrorist who targets Jews on the one hand with declaring support for the Jewish Zionist identity on the other. He points out:

it is a logical contradiction from the scientific perspective and a breach of contract from the legal perspective...and I’m known to be expert on the logical perspective.

For their part, The Lawfare Project, which spearheaded the drive to keep Khaled's proposed appearance at SFSU off of Zoom, agrees with Prof. Pearl from the legal perspective. They told me in no uncertain terms:

Should Khaled ever speak on campus, not only would that be a breach of the settlement agreement, but also a gross violation of the university’s fundamental responsibility to protect its Jewish students. [emphasis added]

But what is happening is more than just a continuation of antisemitic hatred on college campuses with the typical weak response by the university administration. We are all familiar with groups that claim to affiliate with the Jewish community while rejecting Israel and a Zionist identity. 

What is being overlooked is that there is a pro-Zionist voice at the beginning stages of asserting itself, and the public statement required by the lawsuit settlement is part of that -- even if imperfectly implemented by the university.

In a recent interview with Moment Magazine, Prof. Pearl described the developing situation:

I predict American Jewry will soon undergo a profound, painful and irreparable split. I cannot think of another period in Jewish history where the schism was so deep, and growing deeper so rapidly. I see the split in every aspect of life and on many levels...On the surface, most of our faculty and students are still sitting on the fence, true, but the polarization is growing; the Zionist group is becoming more assertive and is closing ranks rapidly, while the Zionophobic group is becoming louder, more organized and more aggressive. [emphasis added]

That pro-Zionist voice showed itself in response to a student at USC, Yasmeen Mashayech, who attacked Jews with tweets such as:

• "I want to kill every motherf**cking Zionist"
• "Death to Israel and its b**tch the U.S."
• "Israel has no history just a criminal record"
• "yel3an el yahood [curse the Jews]."

But even more important than those tweets and the criticism of the university's weak response is the reaction from Jewish leaders -- something that has been ignored by the media.

In An Open Letter to the Leadership of USC, more than 65 faculty members at USC took a stand: We, the undersigned faculty, wish to register our dismay about ongoing open expressions of anti-Semitism and Zionophobia on our campus that go unrebuked. The silence of our leadership on this matter is alienating, hurtful, and depressing. It amounts to tacit acceptance of a toxic atmosphere of hatred and hostility.

The letter went beyond just condemnation of antisemitism and rejecting the university claim that because of legal considerations, USC "cannot discuss university processes or actions with respect to a specific student, much less denounce them publicly." The faculty said it was time for the university to publicly welcome Zionists on campus:

Most importantly, Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli students, as well as those who support the right of the State of Israel to exist need to hear from our leaders that they are welcome on our campus. Such a statement would not infringe on free speech or take sides in political dispute. It is a call for character and dignity. It is overdue. [emphasis added]

This would parallel the SFSU's settlement agreement recognizing the Zionist identity of its students -- and not because Zionists need to be protected as victims. More than that.

Again, Prof. Pearl:

We want the university to say there is something noble about Zionism. Zionists are welcome here not because everybody needs to be protected, but because they can contribute here.

This is what has been missing till now from the hand wringing of universities, with their vague promises to their Jewish students that they will deal with antisemitism on campus.

This is what has to change.

And the SFSU lawsuit and the USC faculty letter show that there are those willing to start to demand it. 

  

En 2021, la France s’est intéressée au Pacifique pour deux raisons : d’une part à cause du revirement australien sur le contrat de sous-marins, d’autre part à cause du troisième référendum d’indépendance en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Gageons que 2022 connaîtra moins d’intérêt pour la zone car usuellement, la métropole ne porte guère attention à ces régions éloignées.

La Nouvelle Calédonie est éloignée de 16.000 km de la métropole, quasiment à son opposé géographique du globe (aux antipodes). Cette île de 18.000 km² se situe au nord-est de la grande île australienne. Elle appartient donc de fait au continent océanien, tout comme la Polynésie d’ailleurs. C’est d’ailleurs tout le problème…

En effet, l’Océanie est un continent mal perçu. Si l’on retrace l’histoire des continents, on s’aperçoit que leur nombre a évolué : ils sont passés de deux (cf. la Revue des deux-mondes : l’île Afro-asiatique, l’île Amérique) à trois (conception traditionnelle des Grecs avec l’Asie, l’Europe et l’Afrique) puis à quatre (jonction des deux approches précédentes : Afrique, Amérique, Asie et Europe) puis à cinq (adjonction de l’Océanie) et aujourd’hui à six (car on a découvert que l’Antarctique était un continent). Des six, l’Océanie est le plus problématique car elle est composée d’une agglomération d’îles où la dimension terrestre cède le pas à la dimension maritime. De plus, elle est disposée dans le Pacifique sud, océan lui-même très vaste et peu favorable à la navigation, à cause justement des étendues.

Ainsi, la Nouvelle-Calédonie est éloignée de 1.400 km de l’Australie, de 1.480 km de la Nouvelle-Zélande. L’île la plus proche, Vanuatu, est à 540 km. A titre de comparaison, la Corse est éloignée de 180 km de Menton, quand il faut parcourir 780 km pour aller de Marseille à Alger. En élevant la perspective, le géographe constate que la Nouvelles Calédonie se situe à 4.500 km de la Chine, soit en gros la distance entre Paris et Abidjan ou près de deux fois Paris-Moscou.

La conclusion est assez limpide : la Nouvelle-Calédonie est d’abord assez isolée dans un continent lui-même isolé. Elle ne fait pas vraiment partie de l’espace indopacifique dont on nous parle tant ces derniers mois. Pourtant, certains n’ont cessé de la citer comme pierre angulaire de nos intérêts dans la zone. Cela pouvait avoir du sens quand elle s’insérait dans un réseau plus vaste. En ce sens, le grand contrat de sous-marins signé en 2016 avec l’Australie contribuait à cet objectif, tout comme les négociations toujours en cours avec l’Indonésie. Depuis l’accord AUKUS de l’été 2021 qui a vu la rupture de l’alliance australienne, cette stratégie est à plat et la Nouvelle-Calédonie est redevenue un isolat stratégique, trop loin de la métropole pour réellement appuyer une stratégie régionale.

La Nouvelle-Calédonie a toujours été négligée par la France. Tardivement colonisée, elle paraissait trop loin (même du temps de l’Indochine) pour susciter l’intérêt. Le dispositif militaire actuel est lui-même très juste : les Forces armées de Nouvelle Calédonie (les FANC) sont maigres : le régiment de service militaire adapté a plus un rôle social que militaire. Ne reste donc côté terrestre que le RIMa du Pacifique-Nlle Calédonie (RIMaP-NC), petit bataillon au matériel vieillissant et accueillant surtout des compagnies tournantes venant de métropole. La base aérienne 186 dispose de quelques appareils eux aussi hors d’âge. Quant à la Marine, elle compte une frégate de surveillance et deux patrouilleurs pour assurer le contrôle d’une zone qui fait la moitié de la Méditerranée. Ces bâtiments sont également obsolètes. Ce dispositif malingre ne démontre pas une grande stratégie, même si les enjeux régionaux ne semblent pas d’abord militaires.

Ils pourraient être économiques au travers du nickel, dont le Caillou est le troisième producteur au monde. Toutefois, le manque d’investissement à mis à mal les sociétés locales alors que le métal est de plus en plus recherché. Cependant, cette production minière permet à la Nouvelle Calédonie d’avoir la plus grande richesse des DOM COM avec un PIB / h de plus de 20.000 €/h. A noter que cette richesse est très inégalement répartie avec des disparités territoriales, ethniques et sociales criantes.

Alors, si la France n’a pas d’intérêt positif à la Nouvelle Calédonie, celle-ci demeure un enjeu. En effet, le débat ne porte pas tellement sur l’Asie orientale (le vrai sujet de ce qu’on appelle Indo-Pacifique) mais sur une partie du Pacifique, celui de la mer de Corail et alentours. Un petit détour par l’histoire s’impose : pendant la Deuxième guerre mondiale, la guerre du Pacifique se déroule à proximité. Guadalcanal est à moins de 1.500 km et les Américains s’installent sur le caillou à partir de 1942, allant jusqu’à déployer 20.000 hommes (deuxième garnison du Pacifique après San Francisco). Ainsi, la Nouvelle-Calédonie est une base arrière de la lutte d’influence qui se déroule dans l’ouest du Pacifique, entre Micronésie et Mélanésie.

Tuvalu, Nauru, Fidji, Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa : autant d’ex-colonies devenues indépendantes et qu sont désormais ciblées par le pouvoir chinois. En effet, Pékin ne cherche plus seulement à prendre le contrôle de la mer intérieure, celle qui sépare son rivage de la première chaîne d’îles partant du Japon jusqu’à Taïwan (mer de Chine Orientale) puis vers les Philippines et l’Indonésie (mer de Chine méridionale) : via la poldérisation des Spratleys et Paracels, l’objectif est quasiment atteint. Pékin veut aller plus loin et prendre pied sur la deuxième chaîne d’îles, comprenant notamment celles que je viens de citer. En vassalisant un certain nombre d’entre elles, la Chine desserrerait l’étau américain sur l’océan.

Observons ce qui s’est passé à Vanuatu : il s’agit du nom des anciennes Nouvelles Hébrides, ce condominium franco-britannique devenu indépendant en 1980. L’île de 12.000 km² compte 300.000 habitants et est surtout connue pour le risque qu’elle court de submersion, avec l’élévation des eaux des continents à la suite du réchauffement climatique. Si au début de son indépendance, Port-Vila (la capitale) noua de nombreux accords avec la France, elle se tourna ensuite vers l’Australie et désormais vers la Chine. Celle-ci prend une place de plus en plus importante, investit dans le secteur économique et construit des bâtiments symboliques et très visibles, en échange d’une dette colossale. On parle d’un port en eau profonde et d’un réseau de télécommunication et d’une base militaire , même si Vanuatu dément et rappelle être non-aligné. « De la Papouasie aux Tonga, cette diplomatie de la dette forme une "ceinture" très fermée. Qu’on en juge. D’ouest en est, la République populaire de Chine a installé son pouvoir financier en Papouasie, aux Etats fédérés de Micronésie, au Vanuatu, aux Fidji, aux Samoa, à Tonga, à Niue. Et plus récemment, en 2019, les îles Salomon et Kiribati sont entrées, à leur tour, dans le giron de Pékin » .

Dans cette perspective, la Nouvelle-Calédonie constitue un pion dans la ceinture entourant l’Australie et joignant Nouvelle-Zélande, Nouvelle-Calédonie, Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée et Indonésie. Le soutien probable de la Chine aux indépendantistes kanaks doit être compris à cette aune. Il s’agit bien d’une partie de jeu de go et les îles du Pacifique se prêtent particulièrement à ce calcul.

Ainsi, la Nouvelle Calédonie constitue-t-elle pour la France d’abord un atout passif « je l’ai moins pour ce qu’il me rapporte que par ce que tu obtiendrais si tu l’avais ».

C’est ce qu’on bien compris les indépendantistes. Pour eux, agiter sans cesse le spectre de l’indépendance, trouver les moyens de contester l’incontestable (en l’occurrence la légalité et la légitimité de la série des trois référendums tenus à la suite des accords de Nouméa), permet d’être toujours en position de négocier de nouveaux subsides avec Paris, dans un marchandage délétère qui ne porte aucun projet d’avenir. Et Paris, agacé mais n’en pouvant mais, de mettre la main au portefeuille.

O. Kempf

When Holocaust deniers are not going around denying that the Holocaust ever happened or claiming that it is exaggerated, they like to make comparisons between Israel and Nazis.

In an interview in 2011 with Haaretz, the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt called these sorts of comparisons "Holocaust abuse": 

Renowned Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt says that American and Israeli politicians who invoke the Holocaust for contemporary political purposes are engaging in “Holocaust abuse”, which is similar to “soft-core denial” of the Holocaust...

“When you take these terrible moments in our history, and you use it for contemporary purposes, in order to fulfill your political objectives, you mangle history, you trample on it,” she said.  [emphasis added]

Strong words.
And Lipstadt knows what she is talking about.

After all, this past July Biden nominated Lipstadt as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

So how did Lipstadt react a little over a month later, when Biden was on the presidential campaign and said about Trump:

He’s sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge

Lipstadt supported the comparison to Goebbels:

Goebbels was very successful at what he did, and I think the comparison by Vice President Biden was a very apt comparison because we’re seeing a lot of this now.

In a tweet that she later deleted, Lipstadt went further, claiming that

had VP Biden — or anyone else — compared him to what Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, or Eichmann did, she/he would have been wrong. But a comparison to the master of the big lie, Josef Goebbels? That's historically apt. It's all about historical nuance.

Goebbels was more than a master propagandist. He was a supporter of the Final Solution.
Nuance only goes so far.

As Melanie Phillips notes:

But it wasn’t apt at all. The comparison was indefensible. Not only was it an egregiously unjustified smear against Trump; more importantly, it downplayed the evil of Goebbels and grossly disrespected the memory of those who were slaughtered in the Holocaust.

For it wasn’t simply that Goebbels was a lying propagandist. It was that he was a Nazi committed to the extermination of the Jews. To compare Trump to such an individual was ridiculous and shameful, and should have been robustly condemned.

And 3 days after Biden's comment, when the Jewish Democratic Council of America released a video comparing the Trump presidency to the Nazi era...

Unlike the ADL, The American Jewish Committee and The Simon Wiesenthal Center -- who all called for the JDC ad to be taken down -- Lipstadt again supported the use of Nazi images for political purposes:

But in the current era, Lipstadt said, the key to acceptable Holocaust comparisons is precision and nuance. Is it the Holocaust? No. But does the current era presage an authoritarian takeover? Maybe.

“People ask me, is this Kristallnacht?” she said. “Is this the beginning of pogroms, etc.? I don’t think those comparisons are correct. “However, I do think certain comparisons are fitting … it’s certainly not 1938,” when Nazis led the Kristallnacht pogroms throughout Germany. “It’s not even September 1935, and the Nuremberg Laws” institutionalizing racist policies.

“What it well might be is December 1932, Hitler comes to power on Jan. 30, 1933 — it might be Jan. 15, 1933.” [emphasis added]

So contrary to her comment in the tweet she deleted, Lipstadt actually does draw a connection between Trump and Hitler.

Nuance, indeed.

Now that Lipstadt has helpfully established that Holocaust comparisons are permitted when they adhere to "precision and nuance," are the people most likely to exploit Holocaust comparisons really going to care -- and how would Lipstadt as Antisemitism Envoy condemn Holocaust comparisons without those doing it laughing at her for her double standard?

For example -- just this week: European Jewish group outraged by use of yellow star during demonstration in Brussels against corona measures:

The European Jewish Association (EJA) reacted with outrage to the image of a yellow star, symbol of Nazi persecution of Jews, used by protestors during a demonstration in Brussels against the governmental corona measures on Sunday.

In a statement, EJA Chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin said: “It is hard to know where to begin with how wrong this is.’’

Rabbi Margolin goes on to point out how comparisons with the Holocaust demonstrate a lack of understanding for the magnitude of what the Holocaust was:

It makes me sick to think how little people understand the hurt that such banners cause, and how little people have a true understanding and appreciation of the sheer scale and magnitude of the Holocaust. To those who marched today with a huge Yellow star, I say this: “just don’t. No matter how you feel about covid restrictions, nobody is tattooing your arms, nobody is herding you onto cattle trucks, and nobody wants you, your families and all your loved ones to die. Above all, educate yourselves and learn what this yellow star truly represents.”

Would Lipstadt echo Rabbi Margolin's words? Probably.

But how does someone who compares a president of the United States with the Nazi Goebbels ("60 percent of [the Jews] will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work...A judgment is being carried out on the Jews that is barbaric but thoroughly deserved") go on to lecture others who use a yellow star to describe what they consider draconian corona measures?

Another question is: what about Democrats -- has Lipstadt been as critical of them?

According to Fox News:

President Biden’s nominee to serve as U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism once blasted Rep. Ilhan Omar’s controversial statements criticizing Israel.

 And The New York Post reports:

President Biden’s pick to serve as special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism has previously slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar for criticizing Israel.

But actually, in contrast to her comments on Trump that were made in public, Lipstadt's comments about Omar were made in response to a question during an interview:

Adam Rubenstein: As you begin to define antisemitism in your new book, Antisemitism: Here and Now, you write that “Antisemitism is not simply the hatred of something ‘foreign’ but the hatred of a perpetual evil in this world.” So on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s recent comment about “foreign allegiance” in the context of pro-Israel Americans, and in discussion of her Jewish colleagues; what do you make of it? Is this textbook antisemitism?

Deborah Lipstadt: Sadly, I believe it is. Dual loyalties is part of the textbook accusations against Jews. They are cosmopolitans, globalists, not loyal to their country or fellow citizens.

Further on in the interview, it becomes clear that Lipstadt neither "blasts" nor "smashes" Omar's comments. Instead, she manages to criticize the statements, without condemning the person -- a far more judicious approach -- unlike in her comments about Trump.

But she bent over backward to excuse Omar:

AR: In your view, are Rep. Omar’s statements antisemitic or are they simply anti-Israel? Antisemitism and anti-Zionism aren’t in theory the same thing, but they often have connection points. Is what Rep. Omar says, her “foreign allegiance” comment, her support for BDS, and that support for Israel in Congress is “about the Benjamins,” i.e. Jewish money, simply “critical of Israel” or does it cross the line into antisemitism?

DL: This is such a nuanced topic and I deal with it in depth in the book. But simply put, (and giving her the benefit of the doubt… which is harder to do each time she engages in one of these attacks), she may think she is only criticizing Israel and its policies but one cannot ignore the fact that she is relying on traditional antisemitic tropes to do so...

Lipstadt goes even further in this comment, putting Omar in a select category of antisemitism:

What it suggests to me is that, at best, these people exist in a place where antisemitism is out in the ethosphere; they hear it, breath it in, and don’t even recognize it as antisemitism.

Similarly, in the case of Rev. Raphael Warnock, during the special election for senator of Georgia -- despite the anti-Israel sermon he gave in 2018, Lipstadt defended Warnock's later claim 2 years later in 2020 that he was pro-Israel.

Here is the key excerpt of the sermon:

As described by Jewish Insider:

Warnock’s 2018 sermon was delivered shortly after the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. “It’s been a tough week,” Warnock noted. “The administration opened up the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. Standing there [were] the president’s family and a few mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers who are responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in, both there and here — misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

Warnock went on to compare the struggle for Palestinian rights with the Black Lives Matter movement. “Meanwhile, young Palestinian sisters and brothers, who are struggling for their very lives, struggling for water and struggling for their human dignity stood up in a non-violent protest, saying, ‘If we’re going to die, we’re going to die struggling.’ And yes, there may have been some folk who were violent, but we oughta know how that works out,” Warnock said. “We know what it’s like to stand up and have a peaceful demonstration and have the media focus on a few violent uprisings. But you have to look at those Palestinian sisters and brothers, who are struggling for their human dignity and they have a right to self-determination, they have a right to breathe free.” 

“We need a two-state solution where all of God’s children can live together,” Warnock proclaimed in the 2018 video before proceeding to charge Israel with shooting innocent Palestinians. “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey. And I don’t care who does it, it is wrong. It is wrong to shoot down God’s children like they don’t matter at all. And it’s no more antisemitic for me to say that than it is anti-white for me to say that Black lives matter. Palestinian lives matter.” [emphasis added]

Faced with his past remarks accusing Israel of killing peaceful Palestinian Arabs, Warnock's campaign gave an evasive response that posting the video showed that the other campaign was rummaging around videos to 'misrepresent' his actual views.

But just one year before the Georgia election, in March 2019, Warnock signed onto the Group Pilgrimage Statement on Israel and Palestine, which featured common distortions about Israel, including associating it with apartheid:

j. We saw the patterns that seem to have been borrowed and perfected from other previous oppressive regimes:

1. The ever-present physical walls that wall in Palestinians in a political wall reminiscent of the Berlin Wall
2. Roads built through occupied Palestinian villages, on which Palestinians are not permitted to drive; and homes and families divided by walls and barriers.
3. The heavy militarization of the West Bank, reminiscent of the military occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa.
4. The laws of segregation that allow one thing for the Jewish people and another for the Palestinians; we saw evidence of forced removals; homes abandoned, olive trees uprooted or confiscated and taken over, shops and businesses bolted with doors welded to close out any commercial activities. [emphasis added]

Yet Warnock's stand on Israel just a year after that is supposed to show that he did an about-face, now supporting Israel. 

He even appeared at AIPAC. Lipstadt writes:

How, I wondered, could someone who had said that, show up at AIPAC? To answer this question, I read his policy paper on Israel. In it, he expressed unequivocal support for Israel, for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, for a two-state solution, and for the $38 billion Memorandum of Understanding, which when signed in 2016 constituted the largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history. He also unequivocally opposed conditioning aid to Israel, as some have proposed.

Lipstadt says that Warnock's new support for Israel answers the question of how he could appear at AIPAC. One might argue that such an abrupt change just one year later only deepens the questions.

In a piece for The Washington Examiner, Jackson Richman includes Lipstadt's support for Warnock as one of the reasons that Deborah Lipstadt should be voted down by the Senate:

Lipstadt said Warnock had come around on Israel-related issues — never mind that he did not apologize or repudiate his past statements and activities on that issue — such as opposing conditioning U.S. assistance to the Jewish state. She argued, "It would be hard for Warnock to repudiate his most recent views as expressed in his Israel policy paper and numerous interviews."

Except it would not have been hard to offer a sincere apology.

It's an odd argument for Lipstadt to make -- vote for Warnock, because even if he is not sincere in his current pro-Israel position, at least he won't be able to easily go back to his previously anti-Israel position.

But all this talk about Lipstadt being Antisemitism Envoy may be for naught, anyway.

Not because her nomination has stalled in the Senate.
But who's to say that Biden will pay any attention to Lipstadt anyway when it is politically inconvenient?

When Fox News wanted to report on the White House reaction to Lipstadt's criticism of Omar -- there wasn't any:

However; when asked if the administration agreed with its nominee’s views on Omar’s comments, the White House was silent, not responding to Fox News’ request for comment.

The Squad can rest easy.

Of the attitudes of the international community towards Israel, one of the most maddening is criticism of Israeli reaction to the terrorist rocket attacks launched by Hamas -- and the lack of international condemnation of those rocket attacks themselves, deliberately launched against civilian targets.

We criticize the West for its lack of sustained outrage against Hamas targeting civilians.
We note that no country would tolerate such attacks without taking strong measures to stop such attacks.

But does Israel itself bear any of the responsibility for the failure of the international community to condemn these deliberate terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians?

In a 2012 article, Where 8,000 Rocket Launches Are Not a Casus Belli, Evelyn Gordon blames this on the indecisiveness of the IDF in retaliating against Gaza rockets as: the rotten fruit of a government policy that for years dismissed the rockets as a minor nuisance for reasons of petty politics: For the Kadima party, in power from 2005-2009, admitting the rockets were a problem meant admitting that its flagship policy, the Gaza pullout, was a disaster. A 2011 report for the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, The Missile Threat from Gaza:From Nuisance to Strategic Threat, by Israeli missile defense expert Uzi Rubin notes how Israeli leaders at the time played down and even dismissed outright the Hamas rocket threat:

• Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to Ariel Sharon, in June 2005 referred to the rockets as "flying objects...in terms of national risk management, they do not constitute a significant factor."
  
  
• Koby Toren, then Director General of the Ministry of Defense, dismissed the the rockets in 2006 as nothing more than a "psychological threat" because of their low level of lethality.
  
  
• Shimon Peres, then Deputy Prime Minister, complained in 2006, "Everyone is stoking the hysteria. What is the big deal? Kiryat Shmona was bombed for years."
  
  
• Ehud Olmert was still downplaying the need for bomb shelters in 2007, announcing that "we will not shelter ourselves to death."
  
  
• Deputy Minister of Defense, Maj. Gen. (res.) Matan Vilnai made a speech at the Knesset in 2008 comparing the complaints of Israeli communities near Gaza with the resilience of Jerusalem’s residents in the face of suicide attacks: "We in Jerusalem…suffered hundreds of dead...did we complain that we could not sleep at night?...Did we claim to have been forsaken?"

 In fairness to Peres, he did not totally ignore the Qassam threat. The same article  that quotes him minimizing the Qassams, also reports:

Translation:

According to Peres, "Palestinians need to be told: Qassams Shmassams, we will persevere. We will not move from here." The deputy prime minister also accused that "our response stimulates the other side to strike. A series of measures must be taken to eliminate the Qassam." Peres declined to elaborate on what means he meant.

According to Rubin, Olmert qualified his comment about shelters with "...though there may be extreme situations in which we will have a limited response capability."

Also according to Rubin, Vilnai visited the Jewish areas near Gaza the very next day in order to correct the negative impression his comments made.

But the fact remains that Israeli leaders initially played down the threat of Qassam rockets coming out of Gaza.

For years.

The lack of a strong Israeli response to the Hamas rocket attacks took the US by surprise.

In a 2011 interview, former US envoy to Israel Dan Kurtzer said that PM Sharon's failure to respond to Hamas rocket attacks following the 2005 Disengagement was a major mistake: Kurtzer, in an interview with The Jerusalem Post, said that immediately after Israel left the Gaza Strip he told Washington “to expect a very serious Israeli response to the first act of violence coming out of Gaza.”

...Kurtzer said his message to the Bush Administration was to be ready for a sharp Israeli military response to rocket fire, “and be ready to support it.”

“The success of disengagement rested on the aftermath of its implementation, so I was very surprised there was no reaction to the first rocket, second rocket and 15th rocket,” Kurtzer said.

Instead, according to Kurtzer, "Sharon argued that the rockets were landing in fields, 'not really that bad,' or were being fired by dissident elements, and not the Gaza leadership" -- setting the tone for excuses of Israeli leaders who followed.

As Gordon points out, one of the motives of the Israeli government in initially downplaying the rocket attacks was to defend the Disengagement itself.

But the Begin-Sadat Center report gives other reasons as well. After all, it was not just the leadership that showed disinterest:

the same Israeli public that withstood so determinately the suicide attacks from the West Bank, demonstrated a lack of unity and determination in contending with the Gaza rocket campaign.

The initial rocket attacks started in 2001 and need to be understood in the context of the Second Intifada that was creating a crisis at the time. Life in Sderot was "was calmer and more secure at the time than metropolitan areas like Netanya, Hadera or Jerusalem":

In hindsight, the scant attention paid to the campaign at its onset in 2001 is easy to justify against the backdrop of violence of the Second Intifada and the suicide terror offensive raging at the time through the heart of Israel's major cities, an offensive which reached its peak in April-May 2002. This absorbed all the attention of the general public as well as Israel's political and military leadership. The few hits, the negligible damage and the insignificant casualties inflicted by the primitive rockets launched at the time from Gaza were justifiably regarded as a minor nuisance compared to the ongoing terror campaign against Israel's traffic, public transportation, shopping malls and civic centers. [emphasis added]

But that does not explain the continued lackadaisical response the following year when Operation Defensive Shield was succeeding in combating the Second Intifada.

According to Rubin, both local as well as national leaders played down the threat during the first 3 years. Even when Israel took steps to invade nearby launching areas in Gaza and fired on rocket production areas that were further away,

At the same time, active defense – that is, anti-rocket systems that could destroy Gaza rockets in flight – was shunned repeatedly until about five years into the campaign when the shock of the Second Lebanon War prompted Israel's incumbent minister of defense [Amir Peretz] to initiate the development of an active defense system against short-range rockets. The failure to do so earlier is another indication of the low significance attributed to the rocket campaign against the south of the country by the political leadership of the time. [emphasis added]

The Second Lebanon War came to an end in mid-August, 2006 and Israel was focusing on the failure to secure an undisputed victory. During this time of soul searching, the priority was on rebuilding the IDF, recovering from economic losses, and repairing damage in northern Israel. The needs of the Israeli communities near Gaza were put on the back burner.

The decision to start development on Iron Dome was not taken until February, 2007 and Israeli bureaucracy delayed not only the development of Iron Dome but also the government-sponsored building of shelters.

The report gives several reasons for this:

• The slow increase in the number of rockets and casualties after the first rocket hit Sderot in 2001 lulled residents as well as local and national leaders into inactivity. o A full-scale defense initiative against the rockets would have been an admission that the Disengagement was responsible for a deterioration in Israel's security.
  
  
• There was disagreement over the correct strategy in response to the Qassams. Eli Moyal, the Mayor of Sderot was one of those who believed that civil protection was an admission that Israel was acceding to terrorist aggression -- "to accept civil protection is to accept terror as part of your life" and that instead of defensive measures, "the war should have been pursued aggressively."
  
  
• There was a concern that as the terrorist rockets increased in range and efficiency, and more communities were put at risk, so too would there be an increased demand for costly population protection.

Today, we proudly point to Israel's system of shelters against terrorist attack from Gaza.

But according to Rubin:

In his 2005 report on the status of the school and kindergarten sheltering program in Sderot, the State Comptroller condemned the government's mishandling of the situation, calling it "a continuous debacle." This harsh term could well describe the government's handling of the entire sheltering program in southern Israel.

Israel has come a long way since that 2011 report, especially in terms of Iron Dome, which is now in demand by other countries facing similar threats.

But we tend to forget the initial slow response by Israel to the Qassam threat, and that may have served in part as an initial excuse by the international community to downplay the dangerous threat that Hamas rockets increasingly pose to Israeli civilians.

 

A Jelen hetilap mai számában Jeszenszky Géza történészt, a rendszerváltás külügyminiszterét, korábbi washingtoni  és oslói nagykövetet köszöntöm 80. születésnapján.

Egy kis ízelítő a cikkből:
"Jeszenszky külügyminisztersége őt történelmi személyiséggé avatja. Fontos öröksége az Antall-Jeszenszky-féle külpolitikának Magyarország nemzetközi szerepvállalása hármas célrendszerének megalapozása: euroatlanti integráció – jó kapcsolatok a szomszédokkal – a határon túl magyarság érdekeinek képviselete. Külügyminiszterként jelentős szerepe van Magyarországnak a Nyugatba történő újraintegrációjában, hiszen Magyarország későbbi EU- és NATO-tagságának az alapjait az Antall-Jeszenszky-féle külpolitika rakta le. Nagy szerepük volt a szovjet csapatok kivonásában, valamint a KGST és a Varsói Szerződés megszüntetésében is."

Jelen lapajánló videó II/45

Jelen hetilap publicisztika: Fehér Zoltán: Jeszenszky 80 (2021. november 11.)

 

Jeszenszky Géza történész, a rendszerváltás külügyminisztere, korábbi washingtoni és oslói nagykövet 2021. november 10-én töltötte be 80. születésnapját. Ez alkalomból egy online eseményt szerveztem, amelyen barátai, kollégái és tisztelői köszöntöttük a neves tudóst és diplomatát a nyilvánosság bevonásával. Az esemény házigazdái az Új Világ Néppárt és a Mindenki Magyarországa Mozgalom voltak. A születésnapi esemény fontos része volt „Az elveszett presztízs” című külpolitikai panelbeszélgetés, amelyben Jeszenszky Géza nemrég újra kiadott műve kapcsán azt vitattuk meg, hogyan vesztette el Magyarország ismét a nemzetközi presztízsét az elmúlt évtized során és hogyan lehetne azt a közeljövőben újra visszaszerezni. Születésnapi köszöntőt mondott:
- Márki-Zay Péter, az egységes ellenzék miniszterelnök-jelöltje, Hódmezővásárhely polgármestere, a Mindenki Magyarországa Mozgalom elnöke
- Pálinkás József akadémikus, az Új Világ Néppárt elnöke, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia volt elnöke „Az elveszett presztízs” külpolitikai panelbeszélgetésen részt vettek:
- Jeszenszky Géza történész, a rendszerváltás külügyminisztere, korábbi washingtoni és oslói nagykövet,
- Pálinkás József akadémikus, az Új Világ Néppárt elnöke, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia volt elnöke,
- Győrffy Dóra, a Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem és a Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem professzora,
- Szent-Iványi István külpolitikai szakértő, volt külügyi államtitkár és ljubljanai nagykövet, - Fehér Zoltán diplomata-politikatudós, a Texasi Egyetem (Austin) tudományos kutatója. Isten éltessen, Géza! Még sok boldog születésnapot! A külpolitikai panelbeszélgetéssel egybekötött születésnapi köszöntés egy élő Facebook-eseményként zajlott, amely felvételről megtekinthető az alábbi linkeken: Jeszenszky 80: születésnapi köszöntés és külpolitikai panelbeszélgetés (Facebook) Jeszenszky 80: születésnapi köszöntés és külpolitikai panelbeszélgetés (Youtube)

Bizonyos rendszerességgel nyilatkozom a New Yorkban működő, az amerikai orosz diaszpórának sugárzó TV-csatornának, a meglehetősen színvonalas hírprogrammal jelentkező RTVi-nak. Ezúttal arról kérdeztek az interjúban, hogy mi a háttere annak, hogy az Egyesült Államok és Nagy-Britannia nukleáris tengeralattjárók gyártásáról állapodott meg Ausztráliával, ezzel komoly diplomáciai csörtét okozva Washington és Párizs között, hiszen az AUKUS-nak elnevezett szerződés Franciaországot ütötte el az Ausztrália részére történő tengeralattjáró-gyártástól, amelyről már korábban megállapodtak. Az AUKUS szerződés célja nyilvánvalóan Kína katonai erejének ellensúlyozása az Indiai- és Csendes-óceáni régióban.

Az orosz nyelvű interjú megtekinthető az alábbi linken:
RTVi New York-i orosz tévécsatorna: Interjú az AUKUS megállapodásról és a nyomában kialakult amerikai-francia diplomáciai csörtéről (2021. szeptember 20.)

A tekintélyes ázsiai napilap, a South China Morning Post az amerikai Kína-politikáról végzett kutatásaim és megjelent írásaim alapján keresett meg, hogy nyilatkozzak két civil szervezetnek az Obama-kormányzat Kínával beindított egyik tárgyalási programjáról szóló jelentése kapcsán. A két civil szervezet tévesen úgy látja, hogy az amerikai félen múlik a Kínával való együttműködés korábbi szintre való visszahelyezése, miközben itt valójában arról van szó, hogy az Obama-adminisztráció időszaka óta eltelt periódusban az Egyesült Államok és Kína nemzetközi rendszerben elfoglalt helye és a közöttük fennálló kapcsolat is minőségileg megváltozott. Ma már a két nagyhatalom versengése dominálja a kapcsolatokat, de ez strukturális tényezőknek is köszönhető, bizonyos értelemben elkerülhetetlen fejlemény.

Nyilatkozatom a cikkben (angolul):

Zoltan Feher, a former Hungarian diplomat and a doctoral candidate at Tufts University, said a distinction should be made between the diplomatic contact and the overall strategy of the US-China engagement. No one was questioning the usefulness of continued diplomatic engagement between the powerful countries, he said. “But in the past decade, we’ve seen increasing evidence that the type of US strategy was probably not fit for a new age. China was already competing economically, militarily and increasingly politically, with the US starting from the post-Cold War period,” Feher said. “The US got stuck in the so-called engagement paradigm and mostly focused on cooperating with China. The shift came about due to the US realising that they also needed to compete.” He said managing the relationship would be a difficult “dance” for the Biden administration, but the US should not sacrifice its interests to work with China on global issues, such as climate change.” A cikk elolvasható az alábbi linken:

South China Morning Post: Top-level China-US talks led to big gains in Obama years: report

2021. június 1-jén a Spirit FM "Beszóló" műsorában Ónody-Molnár Dóra stúdióvendége voltam, ahol két órán keresztül az Amerikai Egyesült Államokról beszéltünk. Szóba került a Biden-adminisztráció bel- és külpolitikája, a társdalmi-gazdasági helyzet, a magyar-amerikai kapcsolatok és az Amerika és Kína közötti versengés is. A műsorba telefonkapcsolaton keresztül bekapcsolódott Jeszenszky Géza korábbi külügyminiszter és washingtoni nagykövet, Seres László újságíró, Szent-Iványi István külpolitikai szakértő, korábbi külügyi államtitkár és Nagy Gábor, a HVG külpolitikai újságírója is.

A szerintem igen érdekfeszítőre sikerült adás meghallgatható az alábbi linken:
Spirit FM: Beszóló Ónody-Molnár Dórával - Amerika

Az Azonnali.hu-n vezetett Keeping It Realpolitik - Világpolitika Bostonból rovatomban 2021. május 8-án a koronavírusjárvány alakulásáról írtam az Egyesült Államokban, közelebbről pedig a Trump- és a Biden-adminisztrációk járványkezelését elemeztem.

A cikk összefoglalása ízelítőképpen:
"A Biden-adminisztráció egy katasztrofális járványkezelést vett át januárban a Trump-adminisztrációtól, de összeszedett erőfeszítéseik nyomán – úgy tűnik – egy év tragédiája után sikerül megfordítani a járvány irányát az Egyesült Államokban. A demokrata csapat a tavalyi elnökválasztást követő két és fél hónapban kidolgozta saját járványmenedzselési stratégiáját. Ennek a stratégiának a két sarokköve az Amerikai Segélyterv nevet viselő törvénycsomag és az oltási program felpörgetése volt. Bár késéssel, de a stimuluscsomagot márciusban sikerült elfogadtatniuk a Kongresszussal, az oltási programot pedig már január végétől felgyorsították."

A cikk elérhető az alábbi linken:
Azonnali - Keeping It Realpolitik 7.: Ahol akarat van, ott megoldás is: Így győzi le a járvány Joe Biden

Fotó: AP News

A Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetemen (NKE) működő Nemzetközi és Európai Szakkollégium meghívására, az Amerika-hét keretében online előadást tartottam az amerikai bel- és külpolitikáról és az idén hivatalba lépett Biden-adminisztrációról 2021. április 21-én. A szervezők tájékoztatása szerint a rendezvény nagy siker volt. Az előadás telt házzal zajlott és a tervezett két órás időtartam helyett az előadó és a hallgatók közel 3 órán át vitatták meg az amerikai és nemzetközi politika aktuális fejleményeit.

Aki lemaradt volna, az előadás videófelvételét a YouTube-on az alábbi linken tekintheti meg:
Elhozhatja-e Biden az amerikai álmot? Fehér Zoltán előadása a Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetemen

A rendezvény plakátja fent látható, alább pedig a beharangozó kép, amelyen a szervezők összefoglalták az előadó eddigi pályáját.

Az International Studies Association (ISA - Nemzetközi Tanulmányok Egyesülete) a nemzetközi kapcsolatokkal foglalkozó oktatók, kutatók és gyakorlati szakemberek legnagyobb méretű és befolyású globális szakmai szervezete, az ISA Éves Konvenciója pedig a nemzetközi kapcsolatok tudományának legfontosabb konferenciája, közel 8000 fő részvételével évente. Idén a konvenciót virtuálisan rendezték meg.

Nagy öröm és elismerés volt, hogy az ISA programigazgatói három beadott pályázatunkat-pályázatomat is elfogadták, így a Konvenció három rendezvényén is szerepeltem. Az elsőben igen nagy megtiszteltetés volt részt venni, hiszen a szakma legnagyobb neveivel és a fiatalabb generáció sztárjaival (Joseph Nye, Monica Toft, Kori Schake, Peter Dombrowski, Nina Silove, Kevin Narizny, Emma Ashford, Thomas Cavanna) kerekasztalon vitathattam meg, a COVID-19 járvány és az elnökválasztás után milyen irányt vegyen az Amerikai Egyesült Államok nagystratégiája. A második rendezvény egy négy tanulmányból álló panel volt, ahol a már említett nagy nevek közül Monica Toft elnökölt, Peter Dombrowski, Nina Silove és Thomas Cavanna pedig tanulmányaikat prezentálták. Én a Clinton-adminisztráció Kína-stratégiájáról szóló tanulmányomat prezentáltam, valamint én voltam a többi tanulmány opponense is. Végül a harmadik rendezvény szintén egy tanulmányok megvitatására összeült panel volt, ahol két másik fiatal kutatóval együtt az amerikai-kínai viszonyról szóló tanulmányainkat prezentáltuk, a magam részéről a George H. W. Bush-adminisztráció Kína-stratégiájáról szóló cikkemet.

2021. április 1-jén az Új Világ Polgári Fórum keretében Jeszenszky Géza volt külügyminiszterrel, Szent-Iványi István volt külügyi államtitkárral és Matura Tamás Kína-szakértővel beszélgettünk arról, mit jelent Kína kihívása a Nyugat (benne Európa és Amerika) számára és hogyan értelmezzük Magyarország és Kína egyre szorosabb kapcsolatát.

A beszélgetés felvételről az alábbi Facebook- és Youtube-linkeken tekinthető meg:
Új Világ Polgári Fórumok 5.: Kína: barát vagy ellenség? Vagy egyszerre mindkettő? (Facebook)
Új Világ Polgári Fórumok 5.: Kína: barát vagy ellenség? Vagy egyszerre mindkettő? (Youtube)

Az Azonnali.hu-n vezetett világpolitikai rovatomban 2021. március 16-án a januárban hivatalba lépett Biden-adminisztráció formálódóban lévő külpolitikáját vázoltam fel, kitérve az új külpolitikai fő csapásirányaira, a középpontban lévő Kína-politika alakulására, továbbá a magyar-amerikai kapcsolatok várható alakulására. Az új amerikai külpolitika iránti érdeklődést is mutatja, hogy eddig ez az egyik legnépszerűbb cikkem az Azonnalin.

"Körvonalazódik, milyen lesz a bideni USA külpolitikája: nagyobb nemzetközi jelenlét, belpolitikai szempontok figyelembevétele és határozottabb kiállás a demokrácia mellett. De miként érinti mindez az amerikai-magyar kapcsolatokat, főleg annak tudatában, hogy az új CIA-vezér autoriternek nevezte Orbánt?"

Azonnali.hu: Formálódik Biden külpolitikája - "Amerika visszatért"

Fotó: Joe Biden / FB

J'ai eu le plaisir de répondre aux questions de Guy-Philippe Goldstein sur la question de la cybersécurité des territoires. IL a publié cet entretien sur son blog de l'usine nouvelle (https://www.usinenouvelle.com/blogs/blogs/cybermenace-sur-le-robinet-d-eau-episode-1.N1060324). Mille mercis à lui. OK

 

 

 

 

Au cours des douze derniers mois, le nombre, mais aussi le montant des rançongiciels a augmenté [1]. Cette chasse à l’entreprise qui peut payer le plus aurait-elle épargné les entités plus petites et plus désargentées, ou celles du public ? Non. Les collectivités territoriales sont également devenues des proies de choix. En France, la mairie de Toulouse et celle de Marseille et sa métropole ont été victimes de rançongiciels en mars et avril 2020. Après de nombreuses autres victimes, au mois de mars 2021, c’est au tour de la communauté de communes de l’Est lyonnais d’être frappée, avec une demande de rançon de 200 000 euros [2].

Parfois les conséquences dépassent les simples aspects monétaires. Nous avions évoqué sur ce blog la cyberattaque contre l’usine de retraitement d’eaux de la petite ville d’Oldsmar [3], dans la grande banlieue de Tampa, en Floride, gérée par la commune du même nom, et dont le niveau de soude caustique dans l’eau avait été manipulé à distance. Julien Mousqueton, le directeur technique de Computacenter, une entreprise britannique de services du numérique, évoque le cas emblématique de la petite ville d’Aulnoyes-Aymeries (Nord), 9 000 habitants, rançonnée pour 150 000 euros [4]. Entre autres effets, le système informatique du centre administratif de la mairie et de ses satellites (Ehpad, résidence de services, centre aquatique, école maternelle…) se sont retrouvés sans accès téléphonique, le système dédié permettant le lien téléphone étant géré par la mairie [5]. Avec des conséquences sérieuses : le système servait à relayer les appels des malades de l’Ehpad vers les téléphones mobiles des soignants. Comme le remarque Julien Mousqueton, « on ne prend pas toujours en compte tous les risques possibles. Or même une mairie peut gérer les alertes médicales d’un Ehpad. » Et c’est bien un risque tangible, « même s’il s’agissait probablement là d’un dommage collatéral, qui n’avait peut-être même pas été imaginé par l’assaillant ».

L'Institut national pour la cybersécurité et la résilience des territoires (IN.CRT) [6] a été créé en 2020 pour essayer de répondre à cette nouvelle menace. Son vice-président et fondateur, le général de brigade Olivier Kempf, également auteur d’une étude de la Fondation pour la recherche stratégique sur ce sujet (FRS) [7], a répondu à quelques-unes des questions de ce blog sur cette menace grandissante.

Quel est l’état de la menace ?

Une hausse s’est amorcée en 2019, a explosé en 2020 et se poursuit en 2021. Les cibles sont les collectivités territoriales [communes, communautés de communes, communautés d’agglomération, etc., ndla], mais aussi tous les autres acteurs des territoires, des professionnels et artisans aux PME. Ce sont bien les territoires au sens large qui sont attaqués.

Les rançongiciels semblent se focaliser de plus en plus sur les proies qui peuvent payer le plus. Pourquoi alors ces attaques sur de petites cibles ? 

Dans les territoires, nous sommes confrontés à une massification, une « fordisation », du rançonnage. Cette industrialisation est d’autant plus rendue possible que la revente de l’information est facile : on la revend directement au propriétaire initial [plutôt que sur des marchés noirs de l’exploitation de la donnée pour d’autres opérations, ndla] ! À côté de l’industrialisation, il y a également une adaptation de la grille tarifaire. Si je m’attaque à une fromagerie de l’Aubrac, je ne demande « que » 2 000 euros. C’est peu, mais multiplié par 10 000 grâce à l’industrialisation, cela permet au groupe criminel d’atteindre des chiffres intéressants.

Cela traduit-il l’existence de groupes cybercriminels qui se spécialiseraient dans ces cibles faciles, avec gain unitaire minime mais hauts volumes ?

Il y a en gros deux types de groupes qui pratiquent cette activité. Les premiers sont les groupes cybercriminels qui, à côté des opérations contre des cibles « riches », vont s’occuper de manière opportune des cibles dans les territoires – parce qu’après tout, si c’est facile, pourquoi ne pas en profiter ? Et puis il y a un deuxième phénomène, celui d’une grande criminalité classique qui se dit que là, il y a un marché pas compliqué, accessible techniquement et avec très peu de risques. Donc autant s’y mettre. Si on considère les attaquants comme des commerciaux qui cherchent de nouvelles cibles, on a d’un côté des spécialistes de niches qui veulent, sous la pression de la concurrence, étendre leur marché, de l’élitisme au « mass market ». Et on a de « grands distributeurs » traditionnels qui veulent faire « un peu de technologie » et élargissent leur gamme de prestations.

Avez-vous également observé une exploitation politique ?       

Il existe de rares exemples d’effacement de site, de rumeurs sur les maires [avec quelques campagnes d’infox locales – par exemple à Crozon (Finistère), Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (Val-de-Marne) et Metz (Moselle). À ce sujet, lire l’étude FRS [8], ndla]. Mais il s’agit là de manœuvres de subversion au niveau local, par des acteurs locaux. Nous n’avons pas encore vu d’actions organisées comparables, par exemple, à l’ingérence de la Russie dans l’élection présidentielle américaine. Les quelques cas identifiés concernent des initiatives très locales. D’ailleurs, on n’a pas, à ma connaissance, documenté d’actions significatives lors des élections municipales de 2020.

Une récente étude du Club de la sécurité de l’information français (Clusif) [9] note que 35 % seulement des collectivités utilisent le chiffrement des données. Comment expliquer ces efforts encore faibles ?

Élargissons à toutes les cibles dans les territoires. Bien souvent, elles pensent qu’elles sont trop petites pour intéresser les groupes cybercriminels. Donc elles ne font rien, elles se font agresser et elles paient. L’explosion est d’autant plus forte que le phénomène a été renforcé par le choc pandémique, qui a forcé ces acteurs à une transformation numérique brutale. Il faut bien comprendre que pour nombre de ces acteurs, penser cybersécurité s’arrête souvent avec l’achat d’un antivirus. La prise de conscience est encore très très faible, y compris auprès de nombre d’édiles, même dans les villes moyennes, voire assez grandes. La prise de conscience du sujet et des actions à mener n’est pas encore réalisée chez la plupart des responsables des territoires.

Quels sont les risques pour les administrés ?

À force de taper de manière massifiée sur toutes ces cibles, on risque de toucher à des données sensibles. Les données du cadastre, l’état civil, les registres de la cantine (y compris qui mange quoi), les données de l’expert-comptable, celles du médecin : tout ceci constitue un ensemble de données sensibles. Par exemple, imaginez un cadastre ou les registres d’un notaire sans redondance : cela serait extrêmement problématique !

Les réponses actuelles sont-elles adaptées ?

Le terrain n’a pas encore effectué sa prise de conscience. D’un autre côté, certaines organisations centrales pourraient avoir une approche trop jacobine. Des actions pourraient avoir lieu au niveau des régions, par exemple, au niveau des 13 régions métropolitaines françaises. Mais cela risque d’être encore trop élevé par rapport à des situations très locales. Les grands groupes industriels risquent quant à eux d’avoir des réponses technologiques trop sophistiquées. D’autant que le budget cyber d’une agglomération de taille significative, voire d’une métropole régionale, ne dépasse parfois pas les 10 centimes par habitant et par an (quand il y a un budget !). Dans tous les cas, nous n’avons pas de réponse efficace sur le premier enjeu, qui n’est pas une histoire de moyens ou de technologies, mais de prise de conscience. Et pour cela, il faudrait une réponse au plus près du terrain.

Quel(s) type(s) de réponses développer ?

On peut saluer les ambitions de sensibilisation contenues dans le nouveau plan cyber du gouvernement français [10]. Ce qui est important pour la suite, c’est de construire des initiatives locales pour combler certains trous et de les élargir par contagion. Par exemple, l’IN.CRT va mettre en place, avec un partenaire local qui partage ses valeurs, un bachelor de cybersécurité des territoires, avec une première promotion à la rentrée 2021. Les Britanniques offrent d’autres exemples intéressants, avec des initiatives très décentralisés établies sur la base de vrais partenariats public-privé locaux. De manière générale, il faudrait compléter la décision d’en haut en encourageant une diffusion locale par une stratégie en peau de léopard.

 

 

[1] https://www.usinenouvelle.com/blogs/guy-philippe-goldstein/cybersecurite-2021-pire-que-2020.N1056369

[2] https://francenewslive-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/francenewslive.com/le-hacker-reclame-une-rancon-de-200-000-e/184653/amp/

[3] https://www.usinenouvelle.com/blogs/blogs/cybermenace-sur-le-robinet-d-eau-episode-1.N1060324

[4] https://www.francetvinfo.fr/internet/securite-sur-internet/cyberattaques/cyberattaques-les-communes-de-plus-en-plus-victimes-du-ranconnage_4192985.html

[5] https://www.canalfm.fr/news/aulnoye-aymeries-un-mois-apres-la-cyberattaque-33559

[6] https://www.cyberterritoires.fr/

[7] https://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/cybersecurite-resilience-grandes-oubliees-territoires-2020

[8] Id.

[9] https://clusif.fr/publications/restitution-de-letude-mips-2020-collectivites/

[10] https://www.usinenouvelle.com/blogs/guy-philippe-goldstein/le-plan-cyber-pour-la-france-un-nouvel-elan-sur-une-route-encore-inachevee.N1069304

Voic le lien vidéo (cliquez ici) d'une conférence que j'ai donnée à l'automne dernier sur la puissance de la France.

Texte du résumé ci-dessous grâce à Diploweb (https://www.diploweb.com/Video-O-Kempf-Quelle-puissance-relative-de-la-France.html) . Enfin, on peut aller plus loin en lisant mon ouvrage Géopolitique de la France (ici)

 

O. Kempf débute cette intervention en définissant la géopolitique comme une question de représentations. La première représentation est cartographique. La seconde est celle qu’un peuple se fait de lui-même et celle que les autres peuples se font de lui, ce peuple pouvant être incarné ou non dans un État. Selon lui, il existe trois angles majeurs à la puissance relative française.

La caractérisation de la puissance française

En effet, la France est une grande puissance géographique, économique, militaire, politique et d’influence. A tort définie comme une puissance moyenne, elle n’est pas pour autant une « hyper » [1] puissance de nos jours.

Dans un premier temps, la France est une puissance géographique mais n’est pas une géographie. La France s’est construite malgré sa géographie. Elle a su tirer profit de sa géographie à partir d’un petit noyau, l’Ile-de-France, anciennement le Vexin. Ce noyau s’est progressivement étendu vers le sud. Il faut prendre en compte la grande verticale entre la Picardie et le Languedoc et rappeler également les nombreuses volontés historiques françaises de repousser les frontières. Ces dernières ne sont d’ailleurs pas forcément naturelles. La notion de frontière naturelle fut inventée durant la Révolution et fut réaffirmée suite à la mort du Roi, ce n’est pas un hasard. En effet, tout au long de l’Ancien régime, il était question de repousser l’Anglais à l’Ouest, l’Espagnol au Nord (les Pays-Bas espagnol) comme au Sud et d’agrandir le territoire à l’Est. La frontière originale était celle suivant le Rhône et la Saône, puis le territoire français s’est étendu d’environ 200 à 300 kilomètres à l’Est. La France est encore le plus grand pays d’Europe - si l’on écarte la Russie et l’Ukraine - de par sa taille et sa population projetée à 67 millions d’ici 2050. Elle est aussi un unique espace au carrefour du continent européen grâce à ces deux isthmes. Le premier est entre la Méditerranée et l’Atlantique et le second, rarement souligné, est entre la Méditerranée et la Mer du Nord. Enfin, la France est dotée de nombreux et divers écotypes. Une complexité naît de la double diversité des écotypes et du peuple français. Le fil rouge de l’histoire de la France est selon lui, le désir de construire un peuple commun comprenant ces diversités.

Dans un second temps, la France est une grande puissance économique, classée au 6 ou 7ème rang mondial, selon les critères mondiaux retenus. Pourtant, depuis cinquante ans, il nous est répété que la France est en déclin. Finalement, ce n’est pas tant le cas, selon O. Kempf, et ce malgré, l’émergence. Cette puissance est agricole, notamment en raison de son industrie agroalimentaire. Certes, celle-ci est devenue plus faible mais elle reste une grande richesse. Elle est également industrielle, elle compte de très beaux champions, à l’instar d’Airbus et Total. Ces derniers sont une force mais également une faiblesse car ce besoin de champions diminue l’intérêt accordé aux entreprises de taille moyenne. Cette puissance est enfin représentée par le secteur du luxe. LVMH, Kering et l’Oréal sont de grands groupes français mais sont également dans le top 10 mondial.

Dans un troisième temps, elle est une puissance militaire affirmée. La France est incontestablement la première armée de l’UE, une armée d’emploi, n’hésitant pas à aller en opération. Elle bluffe parfois les Américains, notamment lors de la réussite de l’opération Serval, qu’ils n’ont jamais comprise. Enfin, la France possède la bombe atomique et une industrie de défense imposante et respectée à l’échelle du monde. Ces atouts sont majeurs dans le critère de la puissance.

Dans un quatrième temps, la France se caractérise par sa puissance politique aux multiples noms, la « France terre d’asile », la « France des droits de l’Homme », la « France universaliste ». Elle est également l’un des cinq membres permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l’Organisation des Nations-Unies ; un des seuls pays à pouvoir encore dialoguer avec le Liban et partie intégrante du groupe de Minsk dans le cadre de la résolution du conflit en Ukraine. Au sein des institutions internationales, nul ne considère la France comme une puissance moyenne. O. Kempf insiste sur le fait que la France n’est pas la puissance dont le peuple rêverait mais elle reste une grande puissance.

Dans un dernier temps, l’influence française joue un rôle crucial dans le rayonnement de la puissance de l’Hexagone. Elle s’exprime au travers de quatre éléments. D’abord ses outre-mer, résultat de l’histoire française mais aussi de son influence dans le monde, relativement représentée au Proche-Orient même si celle-ci s’étiole mais largement établie au Maghreb et finalement en Afrique. Ensuite, sa langue qui est souvent brocardée, sera pourtant la langue la plus parlée au monde d’ici trente à cinquante ans en raison de la croissance démographique de l’Afrique. Puis il est question de son influence maritime, la France possède la deuxième zone économique exclusive (ZEE) au monde. Enfin, la culture française est un élément central qui participe à son image, son rayonnement, ses succès économiques et son attrait.

Oliver Kempf, général de brigade (2S), docteur en Science politique et chercheur associé à la FRS

Image : James Lebreton

La thématique du déclin a au moins une vertu, celle d’aiguillon, qui incite la France à persister, résister, de réformer et s’adapter

Le déclin français

Pourquoi alors entendons-nous un discours aussi négatif au sujet d’un déclin français ? se questionne O. Kempf. Déjà en 1845, existait ce discours annonciateur de déclin et cela est en quelque sorte rassurant. Cette pensée pessimiste est le reflet de la représentation collective de ce que le peuple français se pense être, une puissance perdue. Pourtant, il semble bon de rappeler certaines figures françaises, telles que Saint Louis qui arbitrait tous les conflits en Europe, Louis XIV ou encore Napoléon même si cela fut bref. Plus récemment, lors du défilé de la victoire de 1919, la France est encore la super puissance qui régit le monde. Ce temps-là est abrogé car depuis est né un sentiment de régression, résultat des deux grandes catastrophes que sont les deux Guerres mondiales. Ce sentiment est particulièrement net à partir de 1940. Le traumatisme est extrêmement fort, il retentit dans toute la France et créé le sentiment que plus rien n’est comme avant. Ce même sentiment se renforce lors des guerres de décolonisation, la puissance garantie par son empire colonial dans les années 1930 n’est plus, ce projet géopolitique s’écroule. Elle subit alors deux grandes avanies, la première à Diên Biên Phu en 1954, annonciateur de la fin de ce projet géopolitique puis la seconde lors de l’expédition de Suez en 1956 où elle s’imagine pouvoir agir et est finalement remise à sa place par les deux nouvelles grandes puissances que sont les États-Unis et l’URSS.

Le général Charles De Gaulle a su, en se basant sur la Vème République redonner espoir aux français. Son discours de la puissance et du rang agit comme une grande thérapie de l’inconscient géopolitique français. Homme d’intuition, il a fait le pari européen, celui des années 1960. Il a parié sur l’Europe communautaire comme nouveau multiplicateur de puissance. Cependant l’Europe communautaire qui est construite ne ressemble pas à celle dont la France rêvait et ne possède pas l’influence voulue.

Enfin apparaît, à la fin de la Guerre froide, la mondialisation, qui a elle aussi bouleversée le modèle français. La peur de la domination de la langue anglaise, de la perte de la culture et de bien d’autres choses sont venus renforcer les doutes. Cette suite d’événements explique pourquoi le thème du déclin est si inlassablement repris. Toutefois, il est important de lui reconnaître une vertu, celle d’aiguillon, qui incite la France à persister, résister, de réformer et s’adapter afin de rester une grande puissance.

Comment exprimer ce rêve de puissance ? Quelle stratégie ?

En septembre 2020, nous vivons un nouveau bouleversement, qu’Olivier Kempf interprète comme celui de l’après après-Guerre froide. L’élection américaine de novembre 2020 est inquiétante non pas à cause d’une possible réélection de Donald Trump mais parce qu’elle va rendre plus visible la division américaine qui est pleine de danger. Le Brexit traduit ’une profonde entaille à la construction européenne. La République populaire de Chine devenue la nouvelle super puissance est au centre de la stratégie américaine. Selon O. Kempf, nous vivons finalement la fin de l’Occident, entendu comme cette alliance euro-atlantique.

Ainsi la France a quatre axes d’intérêts dans lesquels rêver, orienter et définir sa puissance.

Le premier est l’axe de l’UE qui lui confère un confort stratégique et une opportunité. Le vrai sujet n’est pas le pari de l’Europe selon lui, mais la façon dont parier sur l’UE. Est-ce que les structures actuelles sont satisfaisantes ? Faut-il en réinventer de nouvelles ? Si oui, lesquelles ?

Le deuxième est l’axe maritime :puisque la France possède aujourd’hui des bordures terrestres stabilisées, elle a peut-être l’occasion désormais de parier sur la mer. Certes, elle l’a toujours fait mais ce n’était que sa seconde priorité. Différents atouts sont à mettre en lumière, ses façades maritimes en premier lieu, ses territoires d’outre-mer, ses ZEE, en second lieu et surtout en troisième lieu la maritimisation résultante de la mondialisation. Quelle est alors la stratégie maritime à adopter ?

Le troisième est l’axe méditerranéen et africain : la France s’illustre comme pivot européen vers la Méditerranée et l’Afrique. Ce continent connaît une explosion démographique et tend à atteindre la masse critique nécessaire pour faire le poids face aux autres masses critiques que sont les Amériques d’un côté et les Asies de l’autre. Que faire vers ce sud ? Que réinventer ?

Enfin l’axe Asie redevient un pôle de puissance. Reléguée pendant deux siècles, l’Asie est désormais à nouveau incontournable. L’Asie est l’autre extrémité du continent : comment faire articuler ces deux pôles, l’Asie à l’Est et l’Europe à l’Ouest ? quel rôle la France doit-elle tenir dans cette articulation ?

Copyright pour le résumé Mars 2020-Monti/Diploweb.com

I still remember when our family went to Disney World, years ago, and we went to the exhibit for "It's A Small World After All." To illustrate the point, the exhibit contained caricatures of every nationality. 
The typical Israeli was depicted as -- a Chassid. Maybe the people at Disney had trouble figuring out what an Israeli is.  Or perhaps they thought their visitors did.
Times haven't changed. Depictions of Jews in the media are often accurate.
As an extreme example, take the new show on NBC called Nurses: Set in Toronto, "Nurses" follows five young nurses working on the frontlines of a busy downtown hospital, dedicating their lives to helping others, while struggling to help themselves. In a recent episode -- which NBC has now pulled off its digital platforms -- one of the subplots is that a Chassidic boy requires a bone transplant in order to be able to walk again.
The boy, with his father at his side, refuses the transplant because the bone might be from an Arab or a woman, or -- as the nurse sarcastically chimes in -- an Arab woman.

First @nbcsnl now @nbc 'Nurses' airs a viciously antisemitic episode filled with lies about Orthodox Jews.

"A dead goyim leg ... from an arab, a woman, G-d forbid an Arab women ... Israel ... without this next step you won't walk again".

Lies and libels lead to VIOLENCE! pic.twitter.com/BvRA4Xiq9e

— StopAntisemitism.org (@StopAntisemites) February 23, 2021 Elder of Ziyon outlines the extent to which the show Nurses mischaracterized Orthodox Jews as:

• Being against any modern medical procedures
• Being against grafting bone or tissue from non-Jews
• Being against having women's organs or bones placed in men
• Jewish men not directly addressing female nurses
• Saying that prayer and medicine are incompatible

Against that background, we can understand The Wiesenthal Center's reaction: The writers of this scene check all the boxes of ignorance and pernicious negative stereotypes, right down to the name of the patient, Israel – paiyous and all.

In one scene, NBC has insulted and demonized religious Jews and Judaism.

Overreaction? Orthodox Jews are targeted for violent hate crimes – in the city of New York, Jews are number one target of hate crimes in US; this is no slip of the tongue. It was a vile, cheap attack masquerading as TV drama. What’s NBC going to do about it? (Note: Apparently the name of the patient is Ezriel, not Israel.)
It is insulting not only for the deliberately negative slant the show casts on Orthodox Jews, but the show's writers couldn't even be bothered to do the minimal research necessary to realize that under the circumstances, no Orthodox Jew and no Orthodox rabbi would object to such an operation.
The website TV Fanatic does offer a possible context for this sub-plot and what it was intended to do -- draw a comparison with the nurse, who is a religious Christian: I understand what they were going for. Ashley [the nurse] comes from a religious background. She has issues with her conservative Christian home and with her conservative Christian mother.

They were trying to draw a parallel and stir up some feeling for her with this push-button topic. Stir up some feeling? Mission accomplished!
But even so, the thinking behind the plot of this episode is not even new.
In 2005, Grey's Anatomy ran an episode with a similar sub-plot: a 17-year-old girl who has recently become more religious finds out that she has a potentially threatening heart condition that could kill her. The good news is that her life can be saved with an operation that will provide her with a new heart valve.
But the valve is from a pig.
The subplot revolves around her refusal to accept the operation because of the source of the valve.
As Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote in response to the show at the time: That Jewish law in no way forbids such use of pig parts (only their consumption – and not even that when life is endangered) is not noted; quite the contrary, the viewer is led to believe that the girl’s refusal would be the natural stance of any observant Jew. The silliness of the scenario is only compounded by the casting of a woman as the Orthodox girl’s rabbi (and the episode’s “good guy,” of course).

...But the most egregious element of the fantasy is the character’s, well, character. The Orthodox youth is portrayed as, in the words of one viewer, “a crazy fundamentalist fanatical Jew [who] was rude and behaved horrendously to the doctors who were only trying to help her.” The character belittles her less-observant parents, cursing like a sailor in the process. Just your standard-fare nice, newly religious Jewish girl. [emphasis added]
Realism and accuracy clearly were not considerations. The writer admitted to The Forward, "Whenever there is a story that has a rabbi I never see a woman, I just see old men. I wanted to clash with the stereotype a bit."
But there is more going on in this episode on Grey's Anatomy than just a clash in stereotypes of what a rabbi looks like. As in the episode in Nurses, in this episode of Grey's Anatomy, the writer deliberately created a character who was obnoxious because of her religiosity.
As Rabbi Shafran points out:
...If the character is a positive one, or even a neutral one, no one, save perhaps an anti-Semite, would complain. But if he or she is consciously crafted to be obnoxious – and not merely obnoxious, but obnoxious in her dedication to her ostensible religious beliefs – does that not border on provocation? [emphasis added]
So what is going on here?
In 2005, Wendy Shalit examined the books written about the ultra-Orthodox world, many of which painted a negative picture, and wondered aloud about the audience for such books: What is the market for this fiction? Does it simply satisfy our desire, as one of Mirvis's reviewers put it, to indulge in "eavesdropping on a closed world"? Or is there a deeper urge: do some readers want to believe the ultra-Orthodox are crooked and hypocritical, and thus lacking any competing claim to the truth? Perhaps, on the other hand, readers are genuinely interested in traditional Judaism but don't know where to look for more nuanced portraits of this world. Does the same desire to undermine the Orthodox Jews motivate the writers of these kinds of episodes on Grey's Anatomy and Nurses?
In response to criticism of her article, Shalit writes: For whatever reason, many writers today like to create immoral haredi and newly-religious characters. The truth is, I don't know why. Perhaps because they are not from these worlds, they fail to appreciate the idealism that's there. Or perhaps it's because, as Ms. Mirvis has admitted, nowadays "there is a great deal of discomfort with religiosity, and I have to admit, I feel it myself as well."

...But when all your Orthodox characters are cold and dysfunctional, and unlike anything this group understands itself to be, then I think one must ask what else might be going on. [emphasis added] Shalit ends this article with a challenge: Let's turn the tables. Suppose there is a new genre in American Jewish literature, in which Reform Jews are vilified regularly. There is the temple's secretary who kills one of her Hadassah sisters in order to get the latest Judith Lieber bag, and a gay Reform rabbi who seduces younger male congregants. There are idealistic college coeds who want to escape Reform life, but are daunted by the prospect of learning Hebrew, so they abuse drugs instead. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is such a genre. And suppose further that these novels are a bit short on character development, that they are primarily driven by page after page of weirdo Reform characters, and mouth agape, one must turn the pages in order to satisfy one's curiosity: what will this bad Reform bunch do next? The authors, who are not Reform themselves, are celebrated in the non-Jewish world and their Reform-bashing literature is translated into multiple languages.

How would we feel about such novels? My guess is that they would not be so popular, and the fact that we have toasted such literature about Orthodox Jews for so long might -- just might -- tell us something about our prejudices. [emphasis added] There was a time that simple curiosity was the driving force in the depiction of Orthodox Jews. In his review of the book This Ain't Kosher, Elliot Gertel reveals that "the (Jewish) producers of [the TV show] Kung Fu originally thought of making the martial arts master a Hasidic rebbe."
But those were simpler days that are long behind us.