ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

Ukrainian Jews who would have been happy to correct 60 Minutes' biases. The above-mentioned

Iosep Zissels, for example, would have offered observations such as that "There was a time when

the leaders of Pamiat [or "Pamyat" - the Russian anti-Semitic organization] would travel from

Russia to recruit supporters in Ukraine. They didn't find any. We are well aware of this fact"

(Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992, p. 4)

CONTENTS:

Preface

The Galicia Division

Quality of Translation

Ukrainian Homogeneity

Were Ukrainians Nazis?

Simon Wiesenthal

What Happened in Lviv?

Nazi Propaganda Film

Collective Guilt

Paralysis of the Comparative

Function

60 Minutes' Cheap Shots

Ukrainian Anti-Semitism

Jewish Ukrainophobia

Mailbag

A Sense of Responsibility

What 60 Minutes Should Do

PostScript

Jewish Ukrainophobia

Is there any? Of course there is. Jewish Ukrainophobia is universal. Ukraine has some, just

as does the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more Jewish Ukrainophobia in

Ukraine than elsewhere? Don't ask 60 Minutes - to ask such a question is to violate rules of

political correctness.

One thing missing from the above discussion of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, then, is any mention of

the reciprocal attitude of Jewish Ukrainophobia (or more generally of Jewish phobic responses

toward Gentiles or peoples of any other creed). But perhaps we would be able to evaluate

statistics on the rate of Ukrainian anti-Semitism more intelligently if we were able to put them

side by side with statistics on Jewish Ukrainophobia. If Ukrainian anti-Semitism shows a

declining trend over some interval, would this fact not be enriched by a comparison with the

trend of Jewish Ukrainophobia over the same interval? In a discussion of Ukrainian-Jewish

relations, how is it conceivable that the attitudes of Ukrainians toward Jews is deemed relevant

and susceptible to quantification, but the attitudes of Jews toward Ukrainians is not? Here, as

in several other instances above, we see a curious paralysis of the comparative function, a

puzzling Ukrainian passivity in allowing the Jewish side to set the agenda for discussion and to

limit its parameters. Ukrainian motes are put under the microscope and measured and analyzed,

but Jewish beams are not.

CONTENTS:

Preface

The Galicia Division

Quality of Translation

Ukrainian Homogeneity

Were Ukrainians Nazis?

Simon Wiesenthal

What Happened in Lviv?

Nazi Propaganda Film

Collective Guilt

Paralysis of the Comparative

Function

60 Minutes' Cheap Shots

Ukrainian Anti-Semitism

Jewish Ukrainophobia

Mailbag

A Sense of Responsibility

What 60 Minutes Should Do

PostScript

Mailbag

60 Minutes' Mailbag comment on October 30, 1994 - the Sunday following the original The Ugly

Face of Freedom broadcast - was inadequate. It failed to retract or correct any of the

misinformation noted above. It failed to present the other side of the story. It continued to

pour fuel on the fire.

Of what possible relevance is it that - as 60 Minutes reports a letter as saying - a fraction of

Ukrainians refuses to admit that they collaborated with the Nazis? Possibly, some minuscule

fraction does irrationally refuse to admit this (60 Minutes offered no data, of course) - but so

what? The same might be true of every other group. Possibly some minuscule fraction of Jews

irrationally refuses to admit that Jews collaborated with the Nazis (I don't have any data

either), and yet 60 Minutes does not seem to find the existence of this group noteworthy enough

to broadcast.

The following Sunday, November 6, 1994, 60 Minutes continued to focus on the Ukrainian reaction

to the original broadcast, but without correction, without retraction, without apology. 60

Minutes is willing to go as far as admitting that Ukrainians are upset, but not as far as

divulging that the cause of that upset is irresponsible and negligent reporting.

As of November 21, 1997, 60 Minutes has not broadcast any correction or retraction or apology.

CONTENTS:

Preface

The Galicia Division

Quality of Translation

Ukrainian Homogeneity

Were Ukrainians Nazis?

Simon Wiesenthal

What Happened in Lviv?

Nazi Propaganda Film

Collective Guilt

Paralysis of the Comparative

Function

60 Minutes' Cheap Shots

Ukrainian Anti-Semitism

Jewish Ukrainophobia

Mailbag

A Sense of Responsibility

What 60 Minutes Should Do

PostScript

A Sense of Responsibility

Jews have lived with no other peoples as intimately and for as long as they have with

Ukrainians. In this shared history, there have been bright periods and dark episodes. It is

possible to imagine a shared future in which the bright periods predominate and the dark

episodes are banished. This is the future that Ukrainians and Jews should strive toward, this

is the image that should guide them in their dialogues and that should have guided Mr. Safer in

his broadcast. Perhaps it is already the attitude that inspires the majority of both Ukrainians

and Jews.

The Jewish claim to a share of the newly-created nation of Ukraine is as tenable as that of the

ethnic Ukrainians and of the ethnic Russians and others who reside there. At present, all three

of these groups are beginning to mine that claim in relative peace. Differences are being

overlooked, cooperation is the norm, a bright future is possible.

Into this scene burst immature and undiplomatic people like Morley Safer needing a sensational

story, Simon Wiesenthal desperate to retain his relevance in the modern world by having it

believed that 1941 is repeating itself, and Yaakov Bleich disoriented by having been plucked

from the United States to fill this exotic role of rabbi of Ukraine and these three show no

grasp of the political situation, no comprehension of the complex world that they are

simplifying into their stereotypes, no sympathy for impulses toward reconciliation that are

manifest on all sides, certainly no sense of responsibility for nurturing these impulses. This

gang of three has no stake in Ukraine - Mr. Safer leaves for home immediately after reading his

lines into the camera, Mr. Wiesenthal lives in Vienna (where needing to get along with Germans

but not Ukrainians, he expediently concludes that Germans weren't as bad as Ukrainians), and

Yaakov Bleich - unhappy in his discovery that in slinging mud he has become muddied, every day

more deeply convinced that he has been miscast in this role of rabbi of Ukraine - we may expect

will shortly be catching a plane for home. What do any of them care if they are stirring up a

hornet's nest in Ukraine?

The Jews who are left behind in Ukraine, who have a stake in Ukraine, who need to get along - to

these 60 Minutes does not give air time. It's the irresponsible ones with nothing to lose who

are able to offer the more sensational testimonials.

And not only does 60 Minutes' trio of provocateurs have nothing to lose from chaos erupting in

Ukraine, they have this to gain - that if chaos does erupt, they will be able to play the role

of prophets who foretold its coming, and they will do this quite overlooking that they helped it

come.

CONTENTS:

Preface

The Galicia Division

Quality of Translation

Ukrainian Homogeneity

Were Ukrainians Nazis?

Simon Wiesenthal

What Happened in Lviv?

Nazi Propaganda Film

Collective Guilt

Paralysis of the Comparative

Function

60 Minutes' Cheap Shots

Ukrainian Anti-Semitism

Jewish Ukrainophobia

Mailbag

A Sense of Responsibility

What 60 Minutes Should Do

PostScript

What 60 Minutes Should Do

(1) 60 Minutes owes its viewers a detailed correction, a retraction, an apology. The product

was defective, it is dangerous, it must be recalled.

Acknowledging that Ukrainians are upset or that they are protesting is not a correction, it is

not a retraction, and it is not an apology. Directing attention to Ukrainian feelings is 60

Minutes' way of deflecting attention away from its own negligence.

60 Minutes has valiantly investigated and exposed hundreds of corrupt, or merely erring, people

and institutions - the time has come to turn the focus inwards and to investigate and expose

itself. Of course this can only be done objectively by an external investigator relying on his

or her own independent staff. Inviting such an external investigator to do a 60 Minutes story

is the right thing to do; it will be appreciated and admired; it will raise 60 Minutes'

integrity from its currently lowered position to a new pinnacle. Damage control won't work. If

60 Minutes really wants respect, it should broadcast a story on itself and call it "The Ugly

Face of 60 Minutes."

As the misinformation that was planted in the original twelve-minute segment will take longer

than twelve minutes to uproot, 60 Minutes should devote an entire nominal sixty minutes to its

correction, retraction, and apology - only such a substantial allocation of time can begin to

undo the damage. At the other extreme, a correction, retraction, and apology confined to

Mailbag will be next to worthless.

(2) 60 Minutes should upgrade its research library by acquiring at least the two-volume

Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, the five-volume Encyclopaedia of Ukraine, Orest Subtelny's

Ukraine: A History, and Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews. This seems a

modest investment to plug a huge and dangerous gap in awareness.

(3) But books are nothing if they are sitting on the shelves of biased researchers. Find out

who contributed to the travesty of "The Ugly Face of Freedom" and get rid of them. And don't

worry about their careers - with their special talents, they will be able to get good jobs with

supermarket tabloids writing about sightings of Elvis Presley and UFO landings.

(4) 60 Minutes should examine with a more skeptical eye materials concerning Ukrainians, and

concerning Eastern Europeans generally, that come from biased sources. As a minimal step, 60

Minutes could adopt the rule of thumb that anyone who considers Eastern Europeans to be

sub-human might better be assigned to some other topic.

(5) 60 Minutes should not be afraid to consult sources capable of balancing a biased story.

There are a large number of historians and other academics (some of whom are Ukrainian or East

European, some of whom are Jewish, some of whom are both, some of whom are neither) that could

have told 60 Minutes at a glance that "The Ugly Face of Freedom" was bunkum.

(6) 60 Minutes should rethink its heavy-handed reliance on the gimmick of interviewing by

ambush by means of which the side favored by 60 Minutes is apprised in advance of the nature of

the interview, has a chance to organize his thoughts, and comes out looking good whereas the

side ambushed is misled into believing that the interview will be supportive, but then is hit

with questions that are hostile and for which he is unprepared. The ambushed interviewee is

discomposed, flustered, fumbles in trying to collect his thoughts, the camera zooms in on his

confusion, and he appears duplicitous. It may be a tried-and-true formula, but it doesn't fool

every viewer and constitutes poor journalism in the case where the interviewee is innocent,

where he would have granted the interview even if he hadn't been misled as to its intent, and

where nothing more damning is extracted from him other than his consternation at having been

betrayed.

(7) In order to permit the viewer to verify the accuracy of a 60-Minutes translation, the

original statement should remain audible and not be muted to the point of unintelligibility, and

transcripts provided by 60 Minutes should include the original of any statements that had been

broadcast in translation.

(8) 60 Minutes should rely on professional translators with accredited competence in the

original language who might be counted on to provide an undistorted translation. Particularly,

60 Minutes should expect that if it relies on a Russian who merely claims that he understands

Ukrainian, it is inviting the sort of biased mistranslation that it did in fact get in its

broadcast.

(9) 60 Minutes should not tackle a complex, multi-faceted story unless it is willing to invest

sufficient resources to get it right. In a typical 60 Minutes story say the exposing of a

single corrupt individual - the number of issues involved, and the amount of data that is

relevant, is small, can be gathered with a modest research outlay, and can readily be contained

within a 12-minute segment. "The Ugly Face of Freedom," in contrast, presented conclusions on a

dozen topics any one of which would require the full resources of a single typical 60 Minutes

story to present fairly - and so, little wonder that most of these conclusions turned out to be

wrong.

(10) 60 Minutes should heighten its awareness of the distinction between raw data and

tenth-hand rumor. A hospital administrator examining a document and explaining how he knows

that it is a forgery is raw data from which 60 Minutes might be justified in extracting some

conclusion; that Symon Petliura slaughtered 60,000 Jews is a tenth-hand rumor which 60 Minutes

is incompetent to evaluate and which might constitute disinformation placed by a

special-interest group intent on hijacking a story and forcing it to travel in an unwanted

direction.

(11) 60 Minutes should ask Mr. Safer to resign. Mr. Safer's conduct was unprofessional,

irresponsible, vituperative. Mr. Safer has demonstrated an inability to distinguish impartial

reporting from rabid hatemongering and as a result has no place in mainstream journalism. He