Editors’ Note: The following commentary, prompted by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s planned visit to Israel Nov. 14-15 and the issue of recognizing the Holodomor terror-famine as genocide against the Ukrainian people, was submitted to the Post on Nov. 11. All references to the visit and issues likely to be raised at the time have therefore been kept in the original tense, referring to future developments.
By Josef Zissels (Ukraine), Galina Haraz (Israel)
The Embassy of Ukraine and the Israeli Foreign Ministry is actively discussing the program of the visit of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko to Israel. This is happening despite the president’s entourage having no unanimous opinion on the expediency of a visit at this time: Events accompanying the process of UPA rehabilitation and the awarding of Roman Shukhevych can be viewed as unfavorable background for the meeting with the government of Israel.
We do not know whether urging Israel to recognize the Holodomor as genocide is one of the purposes of this visit, since the president of Ukraine has delayed his coming here for more than two years, and many unresolved issues have accumulated over this time.
Why is the issue of the Holodomor so important for Ukraine?
The country is in the process of national and historical self-identification, re-interpreting many events of her ancient and recent past, especially those that became milestones and tragedies in her history. The Holodomor and the Second World War are such milestones; they are painful, agonizing topics, so the question of recognizing the Holodomor as an act of genocide is a burning one for Ukraine.
By the word “genocide,” we primarily mean the Holocaust. But there are other tragic examples of this: Armenia, Kampuchea, and Rwanda. We also remember mass deportations of whole nations – the Crimean Tatars, the Chechen, the Ingush and others by the Stalin regime, which led to the death of almost half of those deported.
The formal reason for the Holodomor to have not been recognized as genocide by international law is the question of terminology. By definition, adopted in the UN Convention, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
There is no doubt that the Holodomor was organized artificially, for political and ideological reasons, and that it resulted in the physical destruction of, by various evaluations, from 7 million to 10 million people, an overwhelming majority of whom were Ukrainian peasants, as well as peasants of Kuban (mostly of Ukrainian origin, too), the Volga region, and Kazakhstan.
For Ukraine, this crime of the communist regime was a national tragedy, a terrible blow to the genetic fund of this nation. Nevertheless, many today are inclined to argue whether the destruction of Ukrainian peasants was the immediate goal of the Holodomor, or if their death was the result of the policy of the communist regime solely against peasants as a class.
We consider such discussions at least unethical. There will come a time when we will learn from archives what Stalin and company had been planning. But what their actions have led to is very well known and one must judge the horrible events of those days by their results. And the results of the Holodomor can very well fit the description of genocide.
Today, when a number of countries, including European ones, have recognized the Holodomor as genocide, it makes no sense to get stuck in a terminological debate; the point at issue at this time is an already symbolic act that will once again strengthen our bipolar world.
Unfortunately, the position of Russia seems quite ambiguous. This country flatly refuses to recognize the Holodomor as genocide, explaining that residents of Ukraine were not its only victims. In truth, Russia is afraid that as the successor of the Soviet Union, claims can be made against her, possibly for compensations. These concerns have ground only if Russia truly views herself not just as a successor, but a continuator of the Soviet power: Then she will definitely have not only Soviet achievements to use, but would also have to shoulder responsibility for the crimes of the Soviet state.
We hope that other countries, primarily democratic and civilized ones, will recognize the Holodomor as genocide, realizing the historical justice of this step. Such recognition will be extremely important to Ukraine in her striving to become part of the democratic world. Russia may also realize that Ukraine’s tragedy is her own tragedy as well, for we are not talking about the claims of one nation against another, but of the crimes of a totalitarian regime committed by representatives of various ethnic groups who were blinded by hatred and who hid behind a certain ideology.
Speaking of Israel, we see at least three reasons why she cannot recognize the Holodomor as genocide at this stage:
1. Stereotypical thinking about Ukraine, burdened by memories of all the dark pages in Ukrainian-Jewish relations in the past;
2. A firm belief in the unique nature of the Holocaust and unwillingness to officially recognize that histories of other nations also had tragic events that were no less painful for them than the Holocaust was for the Jewish people. Such an attitude causes a lack of understanding from many nations, both those who have experienced their own tragedies and those who have escaped them.
3. “Tactical” reasons – an unwillingness to get into a conflict with Russia because of this.
We would like to believe that sooner or later, other reasons will prevail in the official position of Israel and the Israeli public mind:
1. Compassion of one nation that has survived a tragedy to other nations that experienced their own tragedies;
2. Solidarity of the democratic world against the remains of imperial, authoritarian, and totalitarian regimes;
3. The promising nature of Ukraine-Israel relations, unlike, in our opinion, the Israel-Russia relations that are lacking in prospect.
We believe that Israel will sooner or later recognize the Armenian tragedy, the Holodomor, and Stalin’s deportations as genocides. Meanwhile, we hope that official Israel will show understanding to Ukraine’s urge to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide and will consider this request.
If not for the “tactical” reasons that so often failed to prevent the crimes of totalitarian empires, the world would have been very different today.
If, following the Armenian genocide, the international community would have appreciated the danger of such crimes for all humanity and found an antidote, we might have avoided the Holodomor, the Holocaust and many other mass crimes.
There are no criteria other than morals. The pain of every nation becomes the pain of all humanity – there is no other path to a tolerant world.
Josef Zissels is the chairman of the association of Jewish organizations and communities of Ukraine (Vaad). Galina Haraz is a representative of the Vaad of Ukraine in Israel.
