but, he was called as a witness for the first and second Leningrad trials. At both appearances, he gave testimony in the defense of his fellow Jews. Contesting many of the facts presented by the prosecutor, he denied the anti-Soviet nature of the Jewish organization.

Azernikov was also summoned by the KGB to appear at the trial of nine Jews in Kishinev, on June 6, 1971. However, after his arrival in Kishinev, he was neither admitted to the witness room, nor was he called to appear. Apparently the KGB had changed its mind about the relevance of Azernikov to its case against the Kishinev defendants.

At the end of June 1971, Boris Azernikov submitted his documents to the OVIR (office of visas and permits). Only then was he arrested.

During the course of Azernikov's subsequent trial, the prosecutor entered into evidence a book of Bialik's poems, a Hebrew calendar and a copy of a letter protesting the denial of visas. While Azernikov admitted possessing these items, he denied that they were "antiSoviet." The state also attempted to link Azernikov with those involved in the two earlier Leningrad trials. To that end, Butman-whom he does know-Dymshits and Kornblit were held in Lengingrad to testify against him. However, from all available evidence, it seems that Azernikov was merely tangential to the Leningrad "conspiracy." The dearth of evidence would indicate that he was arrested primarily for applying for a visa. What has shocked most observers is the severity of the sentence-31⁄2 years at a "strict regime" camp. Of the four types of prison camps in the Soviet Union, a camp of "strict regime" is next to the worst. Prisoners there are required to work long hours at hard labor on rations which, at 2,400 calories a day, mean semi-starvation. They are also denied most contact with the outside world. Why was the sentence too severe? In general, the present Soviet regime has been tightening the reins of control throughout society without reinstating the terror of the Stalinist period. The same applies to the matter of dissenting Jews. The Jewish community is certainly more vocal today, but the Soviet authorities are hesitant to handle the problem with Stalinist techniques. With regard to Azernikov, it would appear that the Soviet Government had figured that world concern about the plight of the Jews had somewhat died down. (N. B. However, in the U.S., the international Jewish dental fraternity, Alpha Omega, in cooperation with the American Jewish Conference on Soviet Jewry, has launched an extensive campaign in support of Azernikov, and in the Soviet Union petitions of protest have been sent to the Soviet authorities.) Hoping to exploit what they thought was a situation of lessened concern, the Soviet authorities wanted to make an exemple of Azernikov: a refusal of his visa application and his prison sentence, would it was hoped, serve to discourage other Jews from applying for visas and would break, once and for all, the back of the Leningrad group.

Further light is shed on the sentence and on the situation of the Jews in the Soviet Union, if one considers that athesim is a major part of Soviet ideology. However, most religious prisoners, e.g. Old Believers and Baptists, are sent to less strict camps. This would seem to indicate that the Soviets feel more threatened by the Jews-most likely because of Israel and because of their persistent demonstrations-than by other religious groups. Their reaction, as is evident from the trials in the past year, has therefore been more severe.

A FALSE REPORT

Foremost among the demands of Soviet Jews is the right to emigrate to Israel. Some Jews have left the Soviet Union, but for those who remain, the process of obtaining a visa is long and arduous.

The number of official forms to be filled out is overwhelming and often securing them, in itself, can create hardships for the Jews desiring to leave. For example, one of the necessary documents is a character reference for each person who wishes to leave, including children in school. The person requesting this document at his place of work may be demoted or fired and the school child may be harassed by his teachers and classmates. He may, therefore, find himself without a means of support and without permission to emigrate. In this light, the desire to have these procedures simplified is understandable.

Recently, a story appeared in the London Observer stating that an "agreement" had been reached between Soviet authorities and a group of Jews, to ease controls on exit visas. It was reported that a memo signed by approximately 100 Jews had been submitted to authorities, and that representatives of the group

which signed the memo had been received by five senior officials at the Kremlin. The five man Jewish delegation consisted of Paul Goldstein, a former political prisoner; Boris Orlov, Gavriel Shapiro, Vladimir Rosenblum, and Victor Polsy, all of whom are known Jewish activists. Among the Soviet officials present at the meeting was Albert Ivanov, head of the administrative section of the CPSU.

However, the story proved to be inaccurate. It is important to note that the Soviet officials who met the Jewish delegation could not have negotiated an agreement which would have signalled such a major change in Soviet policy. The shift would have to have emanated from the highest Party circles. But, even if these officials were empowered to negotiate, there is no "spokesman" for the atomized Jewish community able to respond on behalf of all Soviet Jews.

Jews in the Soviet Union were reported to be angered and bewildered by the story and Richard Maass, chairman of the American Jewish Conference on Soviet Jewry, issued a statement in which he clarified what did occur. Soviet Jewish sources revealed the following order of events:

1. On September 19, a delegation did meet four officials, but their request was denied.

2. On September 28, they were again told that there was to be no change in the procedures.

3. From September 28 to October 3, a group appeared each day, always receiving a negative reply.

4. On October 4, 112 Jews appeared at the government offices and 92 signed a telegram to Brezhnev protesting the consistent refusal of the Soviet authorities to heed their requests.

Mr. Maass further said that to circulate the false impression that procedures. had been eased was "to do a disservice to those whom we are trying to help." Thus, to date, the ordeal of petitioning for a visa continues, as does the effort by those both within the Soviet Union, and outside, to get the procedures eased.

TRAVELLING SOVIET LEADERSHIP

The Soviet Union seems to have embarked upon a major effort to improve both relations with the West and its image in the West. In the past few weeks, both Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin and Party chief Leonid Brezhnev have undertaken major visits to foreign countries.

In both cases, the "Jewish Question" seemed to be one of the major issues. In Canada, over 10,000 people demonstrated on behalf of Soviet Jewry, and Kosygin was questioned about the problem in a press conference.

In light of Kosygin's eventful trip (including a physical attack) elaboratepreparations were made prior to Brezhnev's arrival in France. Soviet Ambassador Piotr Abrassimov met with a group of Jewish leaders, where he reportedly expressed the opinion that the Soviet Union may have begun to recognize the magnitude of the Jewish problem-but perhaps only in its negative implications for the Soviet Union.

The Abrassimov meeting seemed to be an attempt to avert possible Jewish demonstrations in Paris. It was also reported that French officials had tried to dissuade Jewish organizations from the planned protests. Nevertheless, French Jews did protest in Paris and in Marseilles.

Further evidence of Soviet attempts to improve their image may be seen in the arrival in the United States of a group of Soviet tourists. Among the group were two Jews, Colonel-General David Abramovich Dragunsky and Professor Samuel Zivs, known to be apologists for the Soviet regime. The Jewish question has obviously become a thorn in the Soviet side.

AND TRAVELLING SOVIET CITIZENS

On October 20, 1971, a group of private Soviet citizens arrived at New York's Kennedy Airport. Among the eleven "tourists" was an unusually high percentage of Jews-4 professional people: Drs. Yuri Gritsman and Janna Uchvidova, in addition to Dragunsky and Zivs.

Dragunsky is a member of the Revision Commission of the Communist Party's Central Committee who was twice decorated as a hero of the Soviet Union. He is also a deputy of the Moscow District Soviet. Zivs is also an important personage. He holds high positions in the Soviet Academy of Sciences and in the Soviet Lawyers' Association and is a member of the governing board of the Institute of Soviet-American Relations.

Both Dragunsky and Zivs have acted, in the past, to defend the Soviet regime's position vis-a-vis the Soviet Jews. For example, in Brussels, last February, they held a "counter conference" at which they defended the Soviet regime and its treatment of the 3 million Soviet Jews.

Upon their arrival at Kennedy, the American Jewish Conference and the Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry extended an invitation to them to "become acquainted with American Jewish life and to visit some of the many Jewish educational, cultral and religious institutions in which we take great pride." The National Conference also invited Zivs and Dragunsky to a public discussion before the mass media. But, the invitations were not accepted. While in New York, Dragunsky and Zivs attempted to use the media to present their points of view. To counter this, they were followed throughout the United Statesin Washington, D.C., Kansas City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles-by "truth squads" which endeavored to correct misstatements from the "spokesmen" of the Soviet regime.

MAIL BECOMES A SOVIET WEAPON

One of the latest tactics of harassment used by Soviet authorities has been the holding and non-delivery of mail to Soviet Jews. This has been true especially in the cases where affidavits-the first document needed in the long visa application process-are being sent from Israel.

In response to this problem, 10 Jews from the Georgian SSR sent a letter to the Ministers of Communication of Georgia and the USSR complaining that their affidavits, which they know had been sent, had never been received. "The holding up of hundreds of affidavits is an attempt to isolate us from our relatives and from our people in Israel."

These Georgian Jews also complained that they had sent their affidavits to the Netherlands Embassy in Moscow in order to extend their validation. However, as of the sending of the letter, the affidavits had not been received by return mail, even though calls to Moscow revealed that they had been sent long before. Again, the Soviet authorities had held up the mail. This is considered "a crude violation of law on the part of the post office of the Georgian SSR."

In a similar action, in mid-September, 1971, Jews from Moscow, Riga, Minsk and Georgia-100 in all-sent a letter of protest to the chairman of the General Assembly and to the World Postal Union in Bern. This letter too protests the detention of letters from Israel which contain affidavits.

"It is absolutely clear that the contents of letters can become known only after they are opened. Therefore, there is a violation of statute 128 of the Constitution of the USSR, which guarantees secrecy of correspondence to the citizens of the USSR and there is also a violation of the basic provisions of the World Postal Convention signed and ratified by the USSR."

The letter appealed to the U.N. to normalize this irregular situation in the USSR, which is in "flagrant violation of the Rights of Man."

In some ways this action on the part of the Soviet authorities seems strange. While their motives are obvious, the means seem atypical. The Soviets, in recent past, have been concerned about appearance and have at least attempted to appear legal and democratic in all they've done. The holding of mail is an obvious break from this tradition.

Tampering with international mail may be an offense, but, in general, other postal authorities do not exercise jurisdiction over mail in the Soviet Union. Thus the appeal to world authorities is limited in its impact. Yet, because the S.U. is so concerned about its image in the world, it might well respond to the international nature of this protest and if nothing else, deliver the mail

SPOKESMEN IN MOSCOW

In the past few weeks, two significant voices have been added to those pleading for Soviet Jews. The first is that of Yehudi Menuhin, the American violinist. On October 7, 1971, while attending an international music conference in the USSR sponsored by UNESCO, Mr. Menuhin delivered a touching speech which dealt with Soviet cultural and emigration policies. He called Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose works are banned in the Soviet Union, a symbol of "the vision and the greatness of men and women evolving in the vastness of lands." Menu

hin also mentioned M. Rostropovich whose outspokenness in defense of Solzhenitsyn caused a recent concert tour to be postponed.

Without specific mentioned of the plight of the Soviet Jews, the implications of his speech were clear: he prefaced his remarks by stating that he, himself, was a Russian Jew. Mr. Menuhin stated: "May we yet live to see the day when every human being can dwell where his heart calls, whatever his creed, race or occupation."

Mr. Menuhin's speech received no coverage in the Soviet press, despite the fact that the Congress took place in Moscow. Most other speeches were reported by Tass, the Soviet press agency, including one by Shastakovich in which he stressed the need for free cultural borrowing and international exchanges. This in itself has been a controversial subject in the Soviet Union, but obviously not nearly as controversial as the subject of Jewish emigration. Mr. Menuhin was mentioned only as president of the International Music Council.

The second spokesman was Andrei D. Sakharov, the noted Soviet physicist. Known as the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, he was rewarded by being one of the youngest men ever elected to the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Recently, he has turned his attention from physics to human rights and has become an outspoken critic of restrictive Soviet policies.

For many in the West, Sakharov has become the symbol of the "democratic movement." In 1968, his book, Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom was published in the West: in it, he criticized the Stalinist elements in Soviet society. Last year, he formed the Committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. Sakharov, thus far, has not been touched by the Soviet authorities, but the Lebedev Institute, with which he is affiliated, has been criticized in the Soviet press for its lack of ideological purity.

Sakharov's latest pleas for human rights came in an open letter to the Supreme Soviet. In this appeal, he speaks of Jews and other minorities in the Soviet Union who have sought to leave Russia for personal and ethnic reasons. He stresses that these people have been subjected to inhuman treatment-psychiatric hospitals or prisons, loss of job or opportunity to learn, and judicial proceedings. The solution to this problem, according to Sakharov, is the—

. . further democratization of our [USSR] country the overcoming of our international isolation. The freedom to emigrate, which only a small number of people would in fact use, is an essential condition of spiritual freedom. A free country cannot resemble a cage, even if it is gilded and supplied with material things."

Because of his position, Sakharov adds an important voice, but he and the democratic movement have their own goals. While the two groups are obviously allied in their quest for human rights, Sakharov's protest is more laden with political ramifications for the Communist Party than is the desire of Soviet Jews to emigrate. A close alliance could be dangerous to both positions. Sakharov's group could be hurt by an alliance with those who are pro-Israel, and at the same time, the Jews could be hurt by uniting with the potential political opposition to the Soviet regime: one of the Jews' major claims is that their demands are not anti-Soviet, that they merely want to opt out of the Soviet system completely.

A FRENCH APPEAL

On the occasion of Leonid Brezhnev's trip to France in late October, 51 members of the French intellectual community addressed a letter to the Soviet Party chief. Dated October 20, 1971, the letter was signed by such notables as Mme. Clara Malraux, Rene Cassin and Jean-Paul Sartre. What is most significant about this appeal is that the signatories are well known clerics and leftists, as well as those who were numbered as friends of the Soviet Union.

The signers of the letter said that they regretted the necessity of denouncing the Soviet treatment of its Jewish population, especially in light of the role played by the Soviet Union in fighting Nazi Fascism. It is as if they were saying that since the Soviet Union had helped to save Jews during World War II, why are they now doing exactly what they earlier had tried to prevent?

Furthermore, in condemning the Soviet Union the French intellectuals noted— "... the tragedy of the Jews condemned in a series of trials which enraged international public opinion. They demand, besides, the liberation of those who were imprisoned for crimes they did not commit."

The signatories urged that the Jews be allowed to exercise their cultural, religious and national rights as guaranteed by the Soviet constitution.

"True to the French traditions of justice and right, the undersigned demand that every Soviet citizen be free to leave his country or return, as is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

RUSSIAN NOTES: LETTERS AND PETITIONS

A group of 29 Soviet Jews in the medical professions sent letters to the World Health Organization, to the International Red Cross and to the American Association of Physicians. In the letters, the signers requested aid in their attempt to emigrate to Israel. These doctors, nurses and technicians deny any political motivation in their actions:

"We are representatives of the most peaceful and most humane profession in the world and our sole aim is to live and work in the ancient land of our ancestors, for the sake of peace and of flourishing of all humanity.

"Dear Colleagues, We are profoundly convinced that our lawful desire to reunite with our people in Israel will be met with your understanding and your sympathy.

"We are hopefully awaiting your help."

Thus, another appeal to another outside group is registered. What is interesting is first, that this is a professional group, and second, that the appeal was sent to two organizations in which the Soviet Union participates.

Another letter, written by a son to his mother in Israel, laments his difficulties in obtaining a visa. The writer's place of work refused to give him a kharekteristika and there is, therefore, no way he can complete the necessary procedures. In another letter, addressed to U Thant, the hardships of the visa application process are described further. The Zaslavsky family of Kamerovo writes that their daughter, in order to get the necessary character reference, was subjected to a quasi-trial at her place of work. She was called a traitor and forced to resign from her job. The family also tells of being notified that they could leave, only to have the permission rescinded when they went to the OVIR. When they protested, an official of the regional militia declared: "You have no rights; it is only we who have rights."

RECENT EVENTS

Despite press reports of 6,000 to 7,000 Jews, it was reported that over 60.000 Jews, including delegations from Georgia, and Rostov-na-Donu, celebrated Simchat Torah in Moscow. At 9:30 P.M., in the middle of the celebration, the lights were suddenly turned off and police cars pushed through the crowd. Despite the fact that some Jews present shouted derisive comments at the police, no one was hurt.

Returning from the Simchat Torah celebration, Dr. Yuri Nudelman, who had petitioned to go to Israel, found the windows of his apartment smashed. Earlier, a group of students had gathered in front of his building shouting anti-semitic slogans.

In other incidents, it was reported that 3 families in the Crimea have been the object of Soviet harassment. Those involved are the Shteinbuk, Zhukovski and Shoikhed families. In one case, Arkady Shteinbuk was told that it was a pity that the time had passed when people like him were executed.

In Vilna, nine Jews were sentenced to 10-20 days in jail after they staged a 5 day sit-in at the local party headquarters. They were protesting the delays in being granted exit visas.

In Moscow, Professor Ipsia Okovlevna Ginzburg-Cherniak, who is a lecturer of French, had her son murdered about 8 years ago by anti-semitic thugs. Two months later she was approached by the KGB and was asked to sign “documents" stating that she has no objection to closing the file since there is no possibility of finding the murderers.

She recently requested that her aunt, Sarah Scheinberg, living at Merkaz Klita, Herzel 15/110, Bet Shemen, in Israel, send her an affidavit. The affidavit was held up, but in the meantime she decided to prepare to leave.

In mid-October, there was a meeting of the Communist Party in her district which she decided to attend. She was expelled from the meeting and accused of cowardice and of slandering Soviet justice.