"LOYAL" JEWS VS. "ZIONISTS"

The line has at least officially been drawn between "loyal" Jews at home and "Zionists" abroad. The Party has generally avoided outright anti-Semitism; for example, the U.S.S.R.'s chief anti-Semite in the literary field, Ivan Shevtsov, was disavowed by Pravda in July 1970. It even appears that Soviet Jews have derived a peculiar kind of backhanded benefit at least on a token basis-from the regime's sensitivity to charges of anti-Semitism, for some Yiddish materials have been published, supplies of matzoth are reportedly more available at least in large cities-and several Yiddish dramatic and variety troupes continue to tour.

The rebirth of Jewish consciousness and pride, especially among Jewish youth, has been dramatic since 1967. Jews have been in the forefront of an ascent civil rights movement that only a decade ago would have been both unthinkable and impermissible in the U.S.S.R. Under unprecedented pressure from sit-ins, petitioning, and even hunger strikes at home, and from public opinion abroad, the Kremlin has allowed an increase in emigration of Jews to Israel. The volume of emigration-more than 7,000 in 1971 thus far, according to press reports-is small in absolute terms, but relatively large in comparison with that of any other Soviet group. It surpasses the total of Jewish emigration for any preceding year. A small number of outspoken Jewish activists has been dealt with arbitrarily and usually harshly. A number have been sentenced to terms in forced-labor camps. Individual applicants for emigration are sometimes harassed. We deplore this. But we should note that other Soviet civil-rights activists and minority-group militants have been subjected to reprisals of a severity similar to or greater than that which has been given Jewish militants.

In sum, Soviet Jews remain disadvantaged compared to most other major religious and ethnic groups, but their position has not perceptibly worsened in recent years.

A NEW MILITANCE

What is new is the mood of militancy and expectancy among Soviet Jews, and the corresponding echo evoked among Jews and men and women of good will outside the U.S.S.R. by the expression of this new mood. Before, Jews practiced their religion and maintained their culture quietly, and at times furtively, or succumbed to pressures for assimilation. For some, assimilation was welcome. For others, it was a regretted necessity. Assimilated or not, they encountered subtle and at times not so subtle forms of discrimination and were subject to recurrent repressions simply because they were Jews.

But now, thousands publicly demonstrate pride in their heritage, and large numbers have the hope that they, too, like Jews elsewhere, will not only be able to persevere as Jews, but also to occupy a place of honor in the world. Thousands of predominantly young Soviet Jews now jam the streets on Jewish holidays outside Moscow's Central Synagogue and dance the hora to the accompaniment of Israeli pop songs played on tape recorders. The "Jews of silence"-to use Elie

Wiesel's apt phrase have found their voices, so that, along with the discouraging aspects of their situation, there are also definite grounds for hope.

Those in the Soviet Union who are most determined to assert their Jewishness now tend to concentrate almost exclusively on the single issue of emigration to Israel. There is undoubtedly a much larger number of Jews in the U.S.S.R. who, if not assimilated, are at least reconciled to remaining in the Russian milieu, and who would welcome greater opportunities for cultural expression.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP?

We proceed from the assumption that the Soviets are sensitive about their treatment of Jews, and care about responsible public opinion abroad. We believe that the Soviets are particularly touchy about the opinion of foreign Leftists and Communist Parties, and of prominent moral and community leaders in the West, as well as in the "nonalined" countries. That tangible progress can be made is shown by the statement on September 24 of Secretary General U Thant, who stated that more than 400 out of 800 Soviet Jews whose cases he had raised with Moscow had succeeded in reaching Israel. There are many other examples, not all of which have been equally publicized.

With this in mind, the U.S. Government has made clear where it stands on this issue.

On January 11, President Nixon joined leaders of the American Jewish community in urging "freedom of emigration as explicitly provided in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as well as "cultural and religious freedom at home and abroad."

Secretary of State Rogers, in a statement to the Youth Mobilization for Soviet Jewry in October 1970, declared

This Government has repeatedly expressed in public and in private the opposition to anti-humanitarian policies wherever they exist in the world. We believe that free movement is one of the basic human rights of all persons. We have expressed sympathy and support on many occasions for persons in the Soviet Union who wish to emigrate, often to rejoin their families elsewhere, but who are denied permission to do so. We shall continue to make these views known and to take every practical measure which could help to overcome the hardships suffered by such persons.

The Department of State's press spokesmen have publicly spelled out in more detail our views on the problem of Soviet Jewry, for example in a statement on February 24, 1971

The policy of the United States Government in accordance with the principles upon which this country was founded and in consonance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supports the right of peoples everywhere to free emigration and to religious freedom. Americans of all faiths and their Government are deeply concerned by the difficulties placed in the path of citizens of the Soviet Union, including its Jewish citizens, who have applied through legal channels for emigration and who seek to preserve their cultural heritage. World public opinion was clearly a factor in the commutation of the death sentences passed on Jews convicted of treason in Leningrad in December, 1970, for seeking to leave the U.S.S.R. allegedly by plotting to commandeer an aircraft, and in general has restrained the Soviet authorities from broadening the use of quasi-legal punishment against Jewish activists in the U.S.S.R.

In this connection, the Department's press spokesman, in a statement on May 27, expressed deep concern about the Soviet policy of trying people in secret, and spoke for Americans of every political persuasion and religious belief in deploring the persecution of persons for actions which in most other countries would not even be offenses.

U.N. STATEMENTS CITED

Meanwhile, the United Nations offers the best regular forum for focusing world attention on the situation of Soviet Jews, and U.S. officials there have repeatedly spoken out on the issue. For example, on March 17, 1970, Mrs. Rita Hauser, U.S. Representative on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, stated

We do not comprehend any policy which serves to preclude emigration of Soviet Jews who have families or cultural ties elsewhere. We also would hope that the conditions necessary for continued national identity of the Jews in the Soviet Union will prevail, for we are certain that the Jews of that country will add as much to Russian life as the Jews had added to the life of my country. Their distinct cultural and religious identity enhances life; suppression of this identity will diminish the spirit of all Soviet citizens.

At the United Nations General Assembly on December 9 and 10, 1970, U.S. Representative Dr. Helen G. Edmonds denounced the harassment of Jews wishing to leave the Soviet Union and declared

Last year before this committee we pointed out that, despite the guarantee of the Soviet Union's constitution and laws, Jews are not treated as citizens on an equal level with all other Soviet citizens ***. In this atmosphere, it is not surprising that large numbers of Jews are seeking to leave the Soviet Union. Their hopes are supported by Article XIII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." However, the Soviet Union is allowing few Jews to emigrate * * *.

Later, Mrs. Hauser reiterated the concern of the U.S. Government at a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission on February 26, 1971

It is disturbing to note that any interest a Jew may evidence in Israel makes him suspect to the Soviet authorities; indeed * * *. It was stated that any Soviet Jew who wishes to migrate to Israel is automatically an "enemy of the Soviet people".

We hope the Soviet Government will appreciate the keen interest felt in the United States, by Jews and non-Jews alike, that the large Jewish minority group in the Soviet Union be assured the right to be free of discrimination and to practice its religion freely and fully.

On November 3, 1971, less than a week ago, Arthur A. Fletcher, U.S. Representative to the 26th United National General Assembly, called upon the Soviet Union to accord its Jews the right to emigrate and to permit those who remain freely to pursue their cultural and religious interests.

PRIVATE DIPLOMATIC MOVES

The Department also has made use of private diplomatic channels to underscore the importance we attach to the right of free emigration and the reuniting of families. For example, our official representation list of Soviet residents, including many Jews, who have been refused permission to emigrate to join close relatives in the United States, has regularly been presented to Soviet officials at a high level. This prac

70-614-72—4

tice was inaugurated by the then Vice President, now President Nixon, when he visited the U.S.S.R. in 1959. Most recently, the list was handed to Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko on September 24, 1971, during his meeting with Secretary Rogers in New York, as well as to Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Kuznetsov by Ambassador Jacob Beam in Moscow on February 19, 1971, and to Minister Gromyko by Secretary Rogers in October, 1970, in New York. This year's list contained the names of some 150 Soviet Jews, as well as of other relatives of American citizens. Since the Soviet authorities remain extremely reluctant to permit Soviet citizens to emigrate or travel abroad, we are obliged to concentrate our interventions in behalf of persons attempting to join relatives in the United States. We cannot be of direct assistance in cases of persons seeking emigration to other countries.

The results of our representations in support of the right of families to reunite have not been as successful as we would like, but a small amount of emigration to the United States-averaging about 250 persons yearly-has taken place.

We intend to continue this practice. This year, through October 31, our Embassy in Moscow has already issued 251 immigrant visas. Of this number, at least 134 were issued to Jews. This is a small number, but a good sign-last year, only 78 Soviet Jews were permitted by the Soviet authorities to leave the U.S.S.R. for the United States on immigrant visas, according to our visa records.

At current levels, existing immigration and refugee machinery is well able to handle Soviet Jews who obtain Soviet exit permits to join close relatives in the United States. But what would happen if, through an unexpected policy change, the Soviet authorities suddenly lifted their stringent restrictions and allowed a much larger exodus of Soviet Jews to come to the United States?

MITCHELL STATEMENT ON PAROLE

With this possibility in mind, on September 30, Attorney General John Mitchell sent a letter to Congressman Emanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in which he said

The mounting evidence that Soviet Jews have unsuccessfully sought permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union has compelled a Departmental reexamination of the Attorney General's parole authority with respect to refugees ** Accordingly, I can assure you that I would exercise my discretion if the sitnation demanded and parole Soviet Jews who are able to leave the Soviet Union.

On October 6, Congressman Edward I. Koch, a major sponsor of special legislation to provide nonquota visas for Soviet Jews, issued a statement in which he said that he would not now press for passage of this bill, inasmuch as he considered the Attorney General's letter to Representative Celler an unequivocal statement that has the same effect as passage of the Koch bill would have had, with the added advantage that use of the Attorney General's parole power places no limitation on the number of Soviet Jewish refugees who can be admitted to this country.

The Department of State supports this finding of the Attorney General. We consider his statement on parole to be preferable to and more meaningful than the establishment of a specified number of nonquota visas for Soviet Jews.

CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION SUPPORTED

Mr. Chairman, we in the Department of State are very much aware that a number of bills have been submitted for congressional action by the many Representatives who seek to do what they can for Soviet Jewry.

The Department believes that a congressional resolution on the subject would be appropriate. Toward this end, on May 14, 1971, David Abshire, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, wrote to Chairman Thomas E. Morgan of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, advising him of our support for Representative Annunzio's bill, House Concurrent Resolution 8, with minor modifications.

In singling out that bill, Mr. Abshire had no intention of slighting the many other excellent bills which have been introduced. But we feel that House Concurrent Resolution 8, with our suggested modifications, is an excellent vehicle through which to convey the concern of the Congress over this issue.

LAWLESSNESS AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET JEWRY

The influence of those abroad-including that of American public opinion and of the U.S. Government-can only be sadly and substantially diminished when a few American citizens break the law and resort to vigilante tactics against Soviet-or any other-diplomatic officials and commercial personnel and their wives and children in the United States.

Acts of violence and disruption such as those that have occurred in this country advance no one's cause. As President Nixon has stated, they are morally wrong and injure that very cause.

We are convinced that the Soviet Government cannot be compelled into improving the lot of Soviet Jews simply because Soviet housewives are spat upon in the New York streets, or because fanatics shoot rifles into the playrooms of defenseless children.

This kind of sick and mindless fanaticism plays gratuitously into the hands of those in the Soviet Union who oppose any easing of current Soviet policies toward Jews.

Few Americans approve of violence. Even fewer condone violence. directed against the representatives of foreign governments to whom the United States is host. Virtually no one approves the harassment of women and children. Such acts only distract attention from the plight of Soviet Jewry and focus it instead on our own problems with violence and lawlessness.

Extremist disruptions by a few misled individuals has provided an enormous windfall for Soviet propagandists, who could not in their most avid daydreams desire anything better. They use acts of this sort in order to discredit the much larger number of responsible Americans seeking to assist Soviet Jews by peaceful, lawful means.

The Soviets have tried to alienate world public opinion from the cause of Soviet Jewry by playing up the bombings, the illegal harassment, the threats of bodily injury, the bullying of women and children by extremists.