“You also used to fight like Israel…”

This year our country marked a quarter of a century of its existence as an independent state, but the road to true independence turned out to be much longer and more difficult than it seemed to many in 1991. We have already gone through three revolutions and met a challenge of external aggression. How long shall we “roam in search of the homeland on our own land”? It seems that one of the answers to this question, which Lesia Ukrainka asked in the early20th century and which still remains topical, follows from a close link with the intellectual legacy of different generations. Yosyf ZISELS, a well-known public activist, dissident, co-president of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities (VAAD) of Ukraine, reflects in an interview with The Day on the continuity of intellectual efforts, irreversibility of the course of history, as well as on similarities and differences in the destinies of Ukraine and Israel.

Mr. Zisels, why is the intellectual heritage of the generation of dissidents and Sixtiers of no use to the current generation? I also mean Ukrainian-Jewish relations, including the ideas Ivan Dziuba expressed in 1966 during the 25th anniversary of Babyn Yar executions.

“It is a complicated historical process. The question of why something we wished did not happen does not sound very good from the historical angle. In spite of someone’s illusions, we cannot steer history. Yet Dziuba’s speech is very important. For, as is known, in the beginning was the Word. His word was pronounced, created an impression, and showed a tendency that still exists today at a different level. It is very symbolic that he spoke again this year, 50 years later.”

And said, in particular, that his words are still topical today…

“Yes, they are, for historical processes are a long-lasting evolutionary phenomenon. We saw Ivan Dziuba at the time as the first Ukrainian who said something on this subject. But, of course, he was not the first. This event marked a new stretch of the path of Ukrainian society. The unprecedented measures about this year’s anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy are a direct consequence of this process. Unfortunately, the intellectual elite do not have enough influence on society. We can see the destiny of ‘December 1,’ ‘November 21.’ and ‘Nestor’s Group’ – they are unable to influence essentially and rapidly a 45-million-strong country and 20 million Ukrainians who live abroad. Some things, such as Dziuba’s speech, further develop, while other do not because they do not fit in with the evolution of Ukrainian identity. I mean the development of Ukrainians as a political, not an ethnic, nation. The ethnic aspect, which I also value and wish it to develop, is inside this process or, maybe, is even its nucleus but not the whole matter. The making of a Ukrainian political nation resembles similar processes in European countries in the 19th century. The French Revolution brought forth such notions as nationality, nation state, and citizenship. Let us not forget that these notions emerged just a little more than 200 years ago. But Ukraine is passing this stage only now. This process had begun in various groups of Ukrainian society much before, but it assumed a clear shape only when an independent Ukrainian state was formed. The process is going on rather fast, for we are not the first on this path. We take into account the experience of Western Europe.”

At the same time, the West seems to be trying to step over this stage – to drop the concept of political nation in favor of other political forms. Do you think we are too late?

“Once there was a ‘joke’: ‘What is the general course of the Communist Party? It is a curve with all variations.’ We must see the general trend and variations around it. There are some processes, now underway in Europe under the influence of certain circumstances, which need to be comprehended. They remind me of what was going on in the 1920s-1930s, when the Soviet monster with its repressive machine was rearing its ugly head in the East (for mass-scale executions and concentration camps appeared in the USSR earlier than in Germany!). The development of right-wing forces, particularly fascism, began in the West as a reaction to this monster’s aggressive policy. I view this as a system of checks and balances in history. What is now going on in the West and is seemingly out of line with the general course of European and Ukrainian identity is also a variation caused by the Russian threat. The West is swinging to the right, but it is a response to the right-wing process in the East, to a powerful revanchist upsurge in Russia. This is, of course, only one of the explanations.

“Historical analogies are not always correct, so I do not compare Hitler and Putin, but we can compare the way society reacted to this danger at that time (they were trying not to notice it and set Germany against their adversaries) and now. There was an acute economic crisis in the 1930s, and they were very unwilling to break off trade relations. Germany was paying, and Western countries were ready to violate the peace treaties that banned militarization of Germany in order to cash in on this. They did not think of their future and security. Statesmen, who mostly cared about the next elections, proved to be very shortsighted. A few years later they paid an outrageous price of 60 million human lives for this. They also had to spend huge economic resources to destroy what they could have stopped rather easily in the mid-1930s with the help of the League of Nations. Their national egoism resulted in terrible losses. Now we also have an aggressive challenge in the East – Russia. Are we really in the same situation again? European leaders are trying to trade with and appease the aggressor, also at the expense of Ukraine. If Ukrainians had not repelled this aggression on their own, thanks to, above all, civil society, Europe would have been ready to make a deal and surrender Ukraine to Russia. But when Europe saw Ukraine put up resistance, it began to render assistance, albeit small and measured, to ward off the gravest consequences.”

But there are a number of international organizations that are supposed to prevent aggressions and take responsibility for the events that occur not only in one country but throughout the world. So much has been said about this! Maybe, it is an illusion that must be dropped – at least in order to more adequately assess the situation. For both the Holodomor and the Holocaust occurred, when certain international institutions that could have prevented these crimes kept silence.

“Nobody wants to fight and die. Nobody wants to sacrifice the comfortable living conditions that distinguish Europe from other territories. You can force nobody – it is very difficult to overcome this instinct of self-preservation. They only came to their senses and tried to do something when they were driven into a tight corner. Enormous possibilities were lost. If humankind had been aware in 1915 of what really happened in Armenia and found mechanisms, for example, via the League of Nations, to prevent this, there wouldn’t perhaps have been the Holodomor and the Holocaust. But, as is known, history has no conditional mood. Proper national interests were put above the tragedies of other peoples – self comes first. We can see this in the actions of seemingly very wise statesmen and, all the more so, the grassroots.”

Do you agree that the West has met with a crisis of values today?

“Europe is facing a major challenge. A million refugees have already arrived in the old continent, and still more are coming. Russia’s participation in the Syria war is increasing this flow. Europe is marshaling all of its resources, including finances, with due account of its idea of values and tolerance. Imagine that we have also come across a problem like this. There are internally displaced persons in Ukraine, but they are our citizens. By contrast, Europe has to sacrifice its own living standards for the adaptation of refugees who have a different culture and religion and sometimes behave very aggressively. It is a difficult and controversial process, but I hope Europe will manage to achieve success in this. It is about a system of values that has been formed for centuries. But it is a reference point for, not the real life of, Europe. It is an illusion that all Europeans correspond to it. Putin is doing his utmost to split Europe. As is known, all that does not kill makes us stronger. I’d like Europe to undergo this ordeal and get stronger. To do so, it must find proper resources and moral strength.”

SEPTEMBER 29, THE BABYN YAR NATIONAL HISTORICAL MEMORIAL RESERVE. YOSYF ZISELS BELIEVES THAT THIS YEAR’S COMMEMORATIVE EVENTS HELD ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRAGEDY WERE UNPRECEDENTED IN THEIR SCALE

Why did dissidents fail to assume the function of a political elite, as it happened in some other Eastern European countries, in the early 1990s, when there emerged at last the state which they had in fact fought for?

“I think the possibility of this is also an illusion. Let us take closer look. The history of the Czech Republic, where Vaclav Havel became president, and that of Ukraine are different histories of different nations. Unlike the Czech Republic, Ukraine had not had a state of its own before. The year 1991 saw the successful attempt to establish a state – to establish, not to consolidate or develop. The formation of a formally independent state is an indispensable but not a sufficient condition for democratic and economic development and for the establishment of a judicial system. It is only the beginning. Some dissidents (I know them very well) calmed down in 1991 because it was only important to them that Ukraine be independent. It was impossible to convince them that it was only the beginning, not the end, of the road. Besides, let us recall how many of them there were – a few hundred in a 50-million-strong country. To develop in this direction, the movement needed to be supported by millions, but there were none.

“Ukraine had been a colonial entity in the Russian and then the communist empires. What caused the formation of the elite that was trying then to lead the people or at least had the illusion of doing so? There had been an artificial selection for 300 years, when the Ukrainian elite were being eliminated. Its representatives had only three choices: to die struggling for their country’s independence (we know a lot of such examples), to emigrate abroad, where they often lost any influence, or to sell oneself. Why should we be surprised at the quality of today’s elite? It is a product of being part of an empire for 300 years. The function of the colonial comprador elite is to serve the parent state, i.e., to help subdue and rob your own people, grabbing the leftovers of the loot. By inertia, this approach is also evident today, when there is no parent state but habits still remain. It is impossible to change the postcolonial elite in 25 years.

“It is only now that young politicians are gradually emerging in Ukraine. They will come to power in 10-20 years’ time and gradually tip the balance of forces in the elite. The current disillusion in our society is the result of our illusions. We must work instead of expecting another elitist to ‘save the nation.’ This illusion reveals the infantilism of or society. No revolutions, including the ones I took part in, can give the country the results the evolutionary way of development does. A revolution only corrects our reference points – this is the function of Maidans. We still have a long way to go. The evolutionary development continues, and it is history and the identification matrix of Ukrainians that determine its speed. The process is going on, albeit slowly.

“One must pursue unpopular painful reforms and sacrifice one’s own ratings for the sake of the state’s development. Unfortunately, almost none of our politicians are capable of this, for the vast majority of them are populists. We are looking forward to the new elite which will manage to lead our nation down this path of development. It is already being born little by little, above all, in civil society. On the contrary, the current politicians are usually slowing down these processes. The force that is leading us forward is civil society, not the governmental institutions which are vestiges of even the tsarist era. They have not been reformed since then and do not meet the requirements of a civilized country today. Only evolution will bring about a proper development. Politician won’t speak about this because the next elections are the only thing on their mind.”

And those who can speak are not speaking or they are speaking but society does not hear them. Why are there no recognized moral gurus in Ukraine?

“It is written in the Torah: ‘Open my mouth (so I can speak).’ It is an entreaty to God. The people who can speak will do so. But, to have their voices reach the majority, they must form a critical mass. I say it again: the majority, not all of them, because even in Europe not all want to be Europeans. Europe is preoccupied over national identity which the processes of integration allegedly suppress. One must heed these voices which can be also heard in this country. We cannot go to Europe, losing our own identity. It is up to intellectuals to think how to combine the two processes because politicians are unable to understand this.”

Some forces in Ukraine seem to want to bypass this stage of the making of national identity and a political nation and “go to Europe” without it.

“You can’t bypass anything. It is even impossible to build socialism in one country. We remember that in the Soviet era there was an attempt to proclaim socialism in Cuba or Mongolia, in fact a feudal country. It is deception. History has a course, pace, logic, and laws of its own. Not a single individual, even a genius, not a single party, even communist, managed to change it. Nor can we do so. We should feel this breath of history. We can encourage or hinder it, but we can’t change it. History is stronger than all our efforts combined. In its turn, history is governed by our civilizational identity. The changes that have occurred in the identity of Ukrainians for decades and even centuries determine our pro-European course. Is this sufficient? We will see. I wish it would be, but I’m not 100-percent sure.”

But you will agree that history is also an aggregate actions of all people, won’t you?

“It is a separate subject. I’ve been trying to offer a discourse of civilizational identity since 2004. Some share it but the overwhelming majority does not. It is not simple. For individuals are not inclined to reflect on their own instincts – they just live by them. It is far more difficult for these things to be understood at the level of society. We should study the mechanisms that influence civilizational identity.

“Speaking of the war in the east, we cannot abstract away from Russian influence, provocations, and resources. But, in spite of this, if there hadn’t been a foundation in the shape of a different identity which had been formed for centuries there, we wouldn’t have met with such resistance. We didn’t allow Russia to deform our already-emerged identity. We didn’t allow Yanukovych, who tried to drive us into the Eurasian channel, to do so. We managed to resist this. But we should not foist our vision of the future on either Crimea or the Donbas. We should take a very cautious approach to this, for identity changes slowly. Resistance in those areas is not always artificial, not always for money. We must see an organic component there. Indeed, many people there did not want to be part of Ukraine and Europe. It is true that they are under the influence of Russian propaganda. But we ourselves choose the propaganda we want. Who hindered them from choosing Ukrainian ‘propaganda’? Of course, it is weak. But still I watch Ukrainian, not Russian, television. I myself choose the sources of information I like. Those who opt for Russian TV are inclined to do so at the level of identity. They like it more even if it lies.”

Why do many public activists you are speaking about almost immediately discredit themselves when they come into politics?

“Every figure performs best of all in the sphere that begot them. Dissidents showed themselves in the communist era. They were able to resist without fear. Incidentally, they often had different motivations. But who says that they can rule a state? It is another illusion. I have personally never expected this from dissidents. We saw the examples of Poland and the Czech Republic, where dissidents became leaders of the country. It is a very controversial experience. A new-generation elite grew in both the Czech Republic and Poland between the wars. Like the Baltic countries, they remembered having a state of their own.

“Let us look at the latest events. There was the Maidan, and new people came to power on its wave. But are they capable of ruling? Politics should be as professional as any other specialist activity. If somebody distinguished themselves on the Maidan or in the ATO, this does yet mean that they can chair, for example, a parliamentary committee.

“By contrast with Israel, Ukraine faces no danger of being destroyed. What precisely consolidated Israel? Firstly, absence of a colonial history. The population consisted of immigrants, people who came from various countries mostly after World War Two. The immigrant is a different, more energetic, identity. It is a representative of the diaspora, who does not want to put up with his or her own life and strives to build a new one at a new place. Secondly, the Israelis had a prospect of complete elimination, for there were only a million of them surrounded by 200 million people who intended to wipe them out. Israel was a foreign body in the Middle East – the first democratic experience and a civilization alien to this region. They had no choice – either we will be destroyed or will defend ourselves.

“Ukraine will never be eliminated, for it is a colossal nation. Even the Holodomor and World War Two failed to eliminate Ukraine. At the same time, Ukrainians have the experience of colonial times, when they had to adjust to strong empires. Many Ukrainians would like to adjust even now – no matter who will come this time. Yet the Maidans showed that the percentage of the people who do not want to adjust is on the rise. This is our identity and our future. This is the root of our future independence and economic success. We must learn the lesson and get rid of the historical ‘shackles’ that are still hanging on us. Only then will we be able to move on freely.”

There is rather a long tradition in Ukrainian culture to compare the historical destinies of Ukraine and Israel. In particular, Ivan Franko and Lesia Ukrainka did so. It is also discussed today. Do you share this viewpoint?

“I was perhaps one of the first to compare Ukraine and Israel in the early 1990s. The establishment of Israel is a unique experience of forming a state in contemporary history. There are not so many countries that have managed to achieve such results as Israel did after World War Two. We can recall Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, but these countries were run by US occupational administrations, while Israel began to develop only after the British administration had been removed. So even these counties should not be compared.

“Ukraine can draw important conclusions from the Israeli experience of establishing a state in an empty place, forming an army capable of defending its country, setting up a banking system, and developing the high-tech sphere. I’ve been saying since the early 1990s that Ukraine cannot receive economic aid from the little Israel but we can use their experience. The latter should be adapted to our needs – specialists must choose what we can borrow. Israel somewhat looks like, but also differs very much from Ukraine.

“The terrorist war in Ukraine resembles the one being waged against Israel. Hostage-taking, human shields, perfidy, mendacity, and propaganda are typical of both conflicts. Sometimes the impression is that Donbas and Palestine terrorists studied at the same Russian educational institution.”

(To be continued)