The last weeks of 2012 went out with a loud scandal concerning the anti-Semitic remarks of a second-tier Ukrainian politician. The resonance from this private remark was so wide that the discussion quickly became international, and Ukraine once more made the headlines of global media – naturally, as these stories tend to go, it was shown in a rather unsightly manner.

As is often the case due to the peculiar logic of the dissemination of informational viruses, the informational cause itself and the resulting chain of discussions deserve a separate analysis. Not only the inadequate behavior of politicians, who suffer from a lack of basic cultural sensitivity, but the reaction to their Judophobia, also inadequate more often than not, contribute to the continuing hype around the topic. In the end, this only leads to an increase in the amount of anti-Semitic verbal “garbage” in the informational space.

Much Ado About Nothing

The informational campaign around the latest anti-Semitic statements of Svoboda deputies has been so wide that Hadashot's readers have likely not had the chance to remain ignorant as to its cause, at least roughly. Nonetheless, I'll give a short summary of the events here.

The international scandal sprung up practically out of nowhere. Igor Miroshnichenko, a former sports commentator and now the leader of the Sumy regional department of the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda party, gave a sharp comment as to the childhood memories of the American actress Mila Kunis, who was born in Chernivtsy. If we believe the popular tabloid “The SUN,” the Hollywood star told the journalists that she had seen anti-Semitic graffiti when she went to school, and that one of her friends had even seen a swastika drawn on a chair and had returned home in tears. Mila Kunis also spoke about the Holocaust on the territory of Ukraine and about the fact that “After the Holocaust, in Russia you were not allowed to be religious.” “This is a country that obviously does not want you,” said the actress of her difficult childhood in Soviet Chernivtsy.

Kunis' words can be interpreted in different ways, of course. It is easy to understand those people who were, one could say, surprised at her statement. The Kunis family emigrated in 1991. Chernivtsy of the late 1980s - early 1990s was in no way a city the Jewish population which had any real incentive to fear anti-Semitism. At the moment of her departure, the future actress, who had then been named Milena, was a young girl, and it is quite probable that her real memories could have been influenced by a version created, for example, by her parents to explain the departure, or which had just been formed later under the influence of popular stereotypes.

It should also be taken into account that “The SUN's” article, as far as can be seen, was just a retelling of an interview from 2005, also piling up the agony somewhat in regards to the original. For example, quotes from the early Kunis interview do not contain the statement that made it into “The SUN's” headline – that Kunis emigrated because she sought refuge from Ukrainian intolerance. It is the journalists' words, not Kunis', that state that Mila had to conceal the fact that she was Jewish out of a fear of persecution. The interview quotes taken out of context by “The SUN” article seem to point more towards a complete absence of external manifestations of religiousness in her childhood in the Soviet Union. The full text of the interview shows this quite clearly – when answering questions about her religious background, Kunis describes the typical Soviet situation in which children were raised “Jewish on the inside,” but, for example, without any Bar Mitzvah celebrations.

A simple-minded character from Victor Pelevin's novel, who had been courting an Englishwoman, had once read an issue of the most popular British newspaper (“to understand the stuff that the people of my dreams live on”). Upon having completed his read, he understood that his Anglophilia had come under serious duress. “Ah, 'The SUN.' Nobody reads that in England,” the Englishwoman noted with some contempt. When the young man showed his surprise, she merely said, “to understand this you have to be British.”

One would have to a journalist from the tabloids to present the memories of an actress about what it meant to be a Jew in the USSR as “escape for fear of persecution.” And one would have to be a sports commentator to react to this article like the newly elected deputy did. And after his reaction, no one cared what the American actress really said anymore.

The Creation of the “Kikes”

“She's not Ukrainian, she's got a kike's background. She's proud of that, good for her. But she doesn't say a word about the country she was born in, nothing positive. So I can't truthfully count her as one of our own. Let her love Hamerica or Israel, she shouldn't be lumped together with Ukraine!” Wrote the angry Igor Miroschnichenko in a comment on Facebook (spelling in full accordance with the author's own - transl).

Statements that provoke a discussion and an emotional reaction spread through social networks like wildfire – and social networks are beginning to define the informational agenda of slower media more and more. The amount of comments, responses, expressions of support or condemnation for Miroschnichenko's radical statement grew exponentially, made by both “regular” social networks users and by public figures, such as journalists and community and political leaders. The “Igor Miroschnichenko vs. Mila Kunis” topic had been one of the most discussed on the Web, from which it made its way to newspaper pages and television screens, provoking a reaction that became less and less adequate as time marched on.

The most attention was attracted by the very use of “jydovka” (“kike”, female – transl.) by a people's deputy.

Of course, the very use of “kike” is a sign of personal Judophobia, as well as of a lack of restraint, an absence of a culture of speech, and an absence of any proper upbringing. When these qualities are demonstrated by a people's deputy it is, naturally, unpleasant, and does not characterize him or the society which elected a sports commentator with such views to the Parliament at all well.

However, I believe that the quoted comment is symptomatic not only by its dubious form, but also through its quite curious content – if, of course, we attempt to articulate it. Miroschnichenko's message is a vivid example of the “exclusive” understanding of nationality intrinsic to Svoboda's ideology. Its representatives seem to truly believe that only an ethnic Ukrainian by birt has the right to say something about Ukraine, or to consider Ukraine their homeland – and, moreover, they are absolutely sincere in their belief that they have the right to bestow “ukrainianess” onto someone or, conversely, to take it away, that they can decide who is to be “attached” to Ukraine and considered “one of our own” and who is to be rejected.

This statement is the quintessence of Svoboda's danger to Ukraine. The nationalism of the People's Movement of Ukraine had been emphatically inclusive: representatives of any and all ethnicities who resided in Ukraine and considered Ukraine to be their homeland were considered to be part of the Ukrainian political nation. This model of a civil nation became the base for the contemporary Ukrainian national identity, which was reflected in the Ukrainian Constitution, which states, in somewhat outdated Soviet terms, that “the Ukrainian people consists of the citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities. On a symbolic level, the same principle manifests in Ukrainian passports, which do not list the bearer's ethnicity. The concept of a civil nationality that unites society means that all who reside in Ukraine are Ukrainians, which is in no way in contradiction to the ethnic and cultural diversity of society.

In his emotional response, Svoboda's deputy reacted to a statement that disturbed him (better said, to the interpretation of a statement, but as the situation stands, this is no longer important) as the ideology of his party would have him. This is the same logic of an “exclusive” understanding of the Ukrainian nation which demands that the “nationality” entry be re-introduced into the passports.

It was the fact that the American actress was a “Jew by birth” made her an outsider to Ukraine in the eyes of the people's deputy. I would have been ready to understand someone who, in a moment of distemper, would demand that someone who had left Ukraine not be “attached” to it. That hypothetical immigrant would have elected for himself the citizenship of another country, and we, who had once been his compatriots, have no moral right to be proud of his achievements, but neither should we ashamed of any foolish statements he might make. But for Miroschnichenko, Kunis does not have any connection to Ukraine not because she left and chose to be an American, but because of her ethnic background. Later, expressing his surprise at “what the fuss is all about,” Miroschnichenko naively explains this idea: in the Internet, he says, people wrote under Mila Kunis' photos that she was a “beautiful woman, a wonderful actress, and a Ukrainian to boot,” and he “only pointed out that she was not Ukrainian, but a kike by birth.”

Essentially, the people's deputy wrote a demand for the possibility of anyone being denied their affiliation with Ukraine, their right to be “one of our own” on the grounds of their ethnic heritage, even if it was expressed in a fairly soft manner. Of course, even considering the dubiousness of the form, this is still merely a comment on the Internet, and it is yet a very great distance from this comment to a local version of the Nuremberg Race Laws. However, I believe that there is no need to explain how dangerous such a logic is in a country which has been having such difficulty in forming a united civil society. I will just note, as a personal evaluation, that I believe Svoboda's ideology, even expressed in so “harmless” a manner, is more of a threat to Ukraine's model of civil society than, for example, all of the attempts to give the Russian language official status.

By their first actions in the Parliament, Svoboda shows that it is not a counterweight to “tabachinks and kolesnichenkos,” as many kind-hearted national-democrats hoped, but a threat unto itself to the Ukrainian national idea.

Scandal Before All

After a calm analysis of this incident, the most jarring is the total inadequacy of all of the participants. A young woman from the “gossip column” shared her (possibly partially invented) childhood memories with the press. Many years later, the journalists of another title take her interview from their archives, highlight the key points in a none too correct manner (seemingly making up a few details in the process), think up a loud headline, and illustrate the text with sexy photos of the young woman. A people's deputy still suffering (or perhaps enjoying just a little too much) his electoral success and thus not yet able to watch what he's saying expressed his displeasure with the text – we know nothing about in which translation or which rendition he became acquainted with it. The ongoing participation of his adherents was an echo of the recent reaction of radical Islamists to the the video dubbed “Innocence of Muslims,” who expressed their indignation at being accused of having a violent streak through arson, riots, and murders. Things were quite a bit calmer in the Ukrainian situation at hand, but the extremely expressive anti-Semitic hysteria as an answer to a statement of fact concerning the presence of anti-Semitic manifestations is quite telling.

And that had only been the beginning of the scandal...

After the community began to express its outrage over the use of 'jyd' (“kike”) by the deputy, different speakers from Svoboda, including people's deputies, have been trying to outdo each other in attempts to defend their associate and convince opponents of this word's normality when speaking of someone's ethnic background.

However, some of them have let slip words that had been even harsher than those of Miroshnichenko. For instance, the official press secretary of the party, Alexander Aronets, who has also been elected to be a deputy, has expounded on “Jews who do not believe that the Holodomor took place.” He called the actress herself a “kikey.” The creative input of the press secretary to the strategical attempt at defending Miroshnichenko was the idea of using the word 'jyd' instead of the “Russian” word “evrey” (Jew) to facilitate the integration of Ukraine into European culture.

Svoboda has been long been attempting to discuss the permissibility or non-permissibility of using the word 'jyd' and of the difference between its emotional nuances when used in Russian and Ukrainian – from the very moment when its leader, Oleg Tyagnybok, made his infamous speech in defense of the fight agains “kikes, moscals (derogatory term for Russians -transl.), and other vermin.” Iryna Farion, who made it into the Parliament by winning the vote in a single mandate constituency and who is considered to be a philologist, has exhumated an eight-year-old text that was supposed to justify a statement from the party leader himself, which had been no weaker. This illustrious scholar of philology had attempted to prove, using XIX century literature as a source, that “jyd” (“kike”) is a word normally used in Ukrainian, and that “kikey” is even an affectionate form.

I do not believe that an expertise is truly needed to decide whether the word “jyd” is really an insult. It is enough to say that most of the Jewish community sees it as an insult both in Russian and in Ukrainian. Not one of the contemporary dictionaries of Ukrainian supports the ideas of Svoboda's deputies – Miroshnichenko, Aronets, Farion, and the party leader Oleg Tyagnybok himself, who had once again taken advantage of the opportunity to state (in this somewhat unsuitable, as I see it, context) that Svoboda is not an anti-Semitic party and that “jyd” does not have any negative connotations. Yes, yes it does, say the dictionaries, defining the word as either insulting or outdated. While it may have been neutral in texts that are a hundred years old, today it most certainly is not. As the VAAD statement on this incident reads, “Enough to say that the last time it had been officially used in public announcements was by the Nazi occupational administration, in an address to the “Jyd residents of Kyiv,” an outright lie to collect the Jews of Kyiv for the Babiy Yar shootings. In this context, justification attempts citing the language of Taras Shevchenko or Ivan Franko seem scurrilous, hypocritical, and inadmissible.” Yes, the western regions of Ukraine often do not use the word in an insulting manner – in part due to Polish influence, in part due to the archaic character of the rural dialects of Ukrainian. However, in general the statement that “jyd” has no negative connotations is false. Additionally, it is quite unlikely that the Galytsian regional dialect shade of meaning could in truth have been the defining factor – not just a duplicitous excuse – for the Svoboda Sumy functionary's choice of words.

However, it seems to me quite important to stress that, however offensive the statements by Miroshnichenko and all other functionaries who defended him may be, the mere use of the word “kike” is not nearly the most serious grievance that can be addressed to Svoboda.

That same “test” period between the elections and the first day of the new Parliament's work saw the party take part in a number of less-than-attractive events. The leader of the Svoboda Kharkiv department Igor Schvaika, also elected as a people's deputy through the party list, had organized an unsanctioned parade, the participants of which raised their right hand in the Nazi salute and sang a song which called for “knifing the Jews.” And though Schvaika and Aronets attempted to write the extremist elements as “provocation by masked individuals” and refused to accept responsibility for their actions, it can be easily seen on a video recording of the parade that approximately two-thirds of the participants covered their faces with masks, and that the “provocateurs” who were singing the song quoted above and using the Hitler salute had quite peaceful and amiable discussions with the other participants of the parade, including those at its forefront. Statements to the effect that those who organized a mass event are not responsible for the behavior of its participants imply that the newly-elected lawmakers are either absolutely incompetent in legal matters or believe that their audience are complete idiots.

But marches and songs are only half the problem. During that same short period of time, several incidents were recorded in which Svoboda activists – in some cases, certainly them, in others one can make an informed guess as to the identities of the participants – used violence towards their political opponents and human rights activists. Svoboda propaganda not only not deny this violence, but justifies it.

All of this together has forced VAAD Ukraine to once more (the second time after the elections) call to all oppositional parties holding liberal, democratic, and civilized views to evaluate the very possibility of continued cooperation with a national-radical party, the ideology and propaganda of which includes systematic anti-Semitism, and whose activities show clear signs of political extremism. VAAD Ukraine believes that, “any alliance with the national radicals legitimates anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and politically-motivated violence in the public sphere. In addition, such an alliance discredits the entire opposition.”

Readiness to enact ideologically motivated violence (i.e. political extremism in the strict sense of the word) is likely the quality found in Svoboda which causes the most concern in informed observers. However, when the national-radicals attacked and beat their political opponents in Kyiv and Ternopil', there had been no photogenic movie star to take a photo of, and so these incidents went unnoticed against the backdrop of the scandal concerning the insult to Mila Kunis, which had grown more and more ridiculously loud.

As it often happens, the discussion and condemnation of Miroshnichenko's statement sent the efforts of Svoboda's critics down an absolutely non-constructive path. For example, one infamous website still continues the almost daily publishing of hair-curling texts in which the use of “kike” by the national deputies is defined as genocide of Ukrainian Jews – no more, no less.

The editors of this website even made a request to the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice on whether this word was allowed for public use. Naturally, the Ministry gave a reply that there is no law that would prohibit the use of “jyd.” This statement then caused a wave in the informational space, with abundant headlines such as “Ukrainian Government Allows to Call Jews 'Kikes'” and “Ukrainian Government Allows Insults to Jews.”

Various Jewish organizations began writing letters to the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister, calling for legal evaluation to the insults to Jews. Weird activists, self-styling themselves as left-wing anti-Fascists held a protest march under the Ministry of Justice building with the slogan “I am a jyd.” Watching the heated battles around the proverbial “indecent three-letter term” I had to remind myself constantly that this scandal had been created practically over nothing – it was created over an online comment in a social network, even if the comment was made by a people's deputy. Yes, sometimes careless statements by parliamentary members will provoke an outburst from the community even in civilized countries. But they usually lead to different conclusions – minimum to apologies from the member of the parliament who has made the mistake, maximum to his or her resignation. It is quite unlikely that they would provoke letters from international organizations to the President!

As has been noted many times before, the international community is ready to believe in any mad ramble based on the stereotype of the unprecedented level of anti-Semitism in Ukraine. In the spring of last year we have seen how easily a tragic accident can be interpreted as a “tsunami of anti-Semitism” and be seen by foreign social commentators as equivalent to the bloody terroristic attack in Tolouse. In summer, the whole world had been shocked by the revelations on British television about the incredible level of racist violence in Ukraine, so high that it was supposedly dangerous for sportspeople and fans to come to our country for EURO-2012. As far as I have been able to establish, the British TV channel began to examine this topic on a tip-off from “The SUN,” well known for the level of reliability of its information, which had been the first last spring to tell the world of the thousands of Nazi killers ready to attack any guests of the event.

The peak of the idiotic campaign to protect Mila Kunis from insults and all Ukrainian Jews from genocide is the current honorary fifth place that Tyagnybok and Miroshnichnko have taken in the yearly “2012 Top-10 Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Slurs” list of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I can't resist a bit of acrimony here: only the SWC could use statements by “The Sun” journalists to seriously say something like “ Mila Kunis’ family, like countless thousands of other Ukrainian Jewish families, left the Ukraine in the first place because of anti-Semitism. ” But even considering the inexactness of this exceptional document (besides what has already been said, it is impossible to not point out that 'jydess' had been translated by them as “dirty Jewess”) and the dubiousness of the very idea of such a list, in which the President of Iran and a Brazilian caricaturist stand next to each other, one can still say that this 'award' is well-deserved. This is what international fame and recognition look like, a scandal being the shortest way to fame. It is ironic that the person who had been outraged at the absence of positive memories of Ukraine from someone who had been born in Chernivtsy has done everything within his power to make Ukraine look badly in the eyes of the global community.

It is, of course, sad that in this context Ukrainian Jews have become a mere bargaining chip in informational games and that the truly dangerous tendencies in the ideology and activities of Ukrainian right-wing extremists have been pushed out of the spotlight by a half-anecdotic expressive polemic “about nothing,” the likes of which happen by the thousands in Internet social networks. But the show must go on – such is the law of popular media. And we can do nothing but be ready for more scandals.