Why members of Congress keep breaking financial laws over and over again

Raw Story
November 29, 2023 

Rep. George Santos (R- NY) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 7, 2023. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/ZUMA Press/TNS

Throughout 2023, federal lawmakers kept introducing a steady stream of bills designed to stop congressional stock trading.

At the same time, their colleagues continued breaking existing financial disclosure and conflicts-of-interest laws.

Nothing has come of those bills yet, but Raw Story has identified at least 37 members of Congress this year who violated federal law by not properly disclosing their personal finances as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012.

"These laws matter in a large part for public trust and transparency," said Raw Story investigative reporter Alexandria Jacobson on "The Julie Mason Show" on SiriusXM's POTUS Politics channel Tuesday.

Jacobson's latest reporting found another 11 members of Congress, including embattled Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who all failed to properly file their annual financial disclosure reports on time.

"We find these violations happen on both sides of the aisle," Jacobson said, noting that of the 11 who didn't file on time, seven were Democrats and four were Republicans.

Santos, who is facing numerous criminal charges and expulsion from the U.S. House, 

One of the original authors of the STOCK Act, former Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) called out his former colleagues earlier this year for their "dog ate my homework excuses" for not following the laws and the lack of consequences enforced by congressional ethics committees.

"The House Ethics Committee certainly could act and enforce consequences for these violations of federal laws, but oftentimes, they don't. Either the fees get waived, or they just pay a nominal $200 fee for not being transparent and following the law," Jacobson said.

Other Raw Story reporting this year revealed a handful of members of congressional Armed Services Committees who owned defense contractor stock, such as Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL and Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA).

"It’s definitely a lot of labor, but we think it’s very important for the public to be able to know this information, and we’re happy to dig into that and share that," Jacobson said.

In October, Jacobson won first prize in the ION Awards contest for investigative journalism for her reporting on the personal finances of public officials.

Listen to the full interview

:

'Treacherous': Lawmaker slams Trump for saying he didn't vow to support the Constitution

Carl Gibson, AlterNet
November 28, 2023 

Donald Trump at the Elysee Palace. 

(Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com)

In a November 27 legal filing submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court, attorneys representing former President Donald Trump made a unique argument in justifying that the US Constitution's insurrection clause doesn't apply to their client.

The clause, which is in Section Three of the 14th Amendment, states that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Trump's legal team argued that as president, their client is exempt from that language.

"The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully. Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States,'" the filing read.

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

The filing also argues that the events of January 6, 2021 did not constitute an insurrection, even though Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt Congress' official certification of the 2020 presidential election in an hours-long riot that left several dead and hundreds more injured.

"Wow in a legal proceeding trump is now arguing he didn’t violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,'" Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey) tweeted. "This treacherous criminal is head of the republican party."

Trump did in fact take such an oath. The presidential oath of office — which all presidents take on Inauguration Day — explicitly mentions the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the oath reads.

The matter before the Colorado Supreme Court concerns an attempt to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot on the grounds that he is ineligible under the insurrection clause due to Trump's involvement in the January 6 riot. While a judge ruled in Trump's favor, that decision has been appealed by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Arizona alfalfa farmers clash with foreign firms over water use

By —Anita Snow, Associated Press
By —Thomas Machowicz, Associated Press

Nov 28, 2023 

WENDEN, Ariz. (AP) — A blanket of bright green alfalfa spreads across western Arizona’s McMullen Valley, ringed by rolling mountains and warmed by the hot desert sun.

READ MORE: In drought-stricken Arizona, fresh scrutiny of Saudi Arabia-owned farm’s water use

Matthew Hancock’s family has used groundwater to grow forage crops here for more than six decades. They’re long accustomed to caprices of Mother Nature that can spoil an entire alfalfa cutting with a downpour or generate an especially big yield with a string of blistering days.

But concerns about future water supplies from the valley’s ancient aquifers, which hold groundwater supplies, are bubbling up in Wenden, a town of around 700 people where the Hancock family farms.

Some neighbors complain their backyard wells have dried up since the Emirati agribusiness Al Dahra began farming alfalfa here on about 3,000 acres (1,214 hectares) several years ago.

It is unknown how much water the Al Dahra operation uses, but Hancock estimates it needs 15,000 to 16,000 acre feet a year based on what his own alfalfa farm needs. He says he gets all the water he needs by drilling down hundreds of feet. An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to serve two to three U.S. households annually.

Hancock said he and neighbors with larger farms worry more that in the future state officials could take control of the groundwater they now use for agriculture and transfer it to Phoenix and other urban areas amid the worst Western drought in centuries.

“I worry about the local community farming in Arizona,” Hancock said, standing outside an open-sided barn stacked with hay bales.

READ MORE: Persistent drought and overdevelopment cause record low water levels for tens of millions

Concerns about the Earth’s groundwater supplies are front of mind in the lead-up to COP28, the annual United Nations climate summit opening this week in the Emirati city of Dubai. Gulf countries like the UAE are especially vulnerable to global warming, with high temperatures, arid climates, water scarcity and rising sea levels.

“Water shortages have driven companies to go where the water is,” said Robert Glennon, a water policy and law expert and professor emeritus at the University of Arizona.

Experts say tensions are inevitable as companies in climate-challenged countries like the United Arab Emirates increasingly look to faraway places like Arizona for the water and land to grow forage for livestock and commodities such as wheat for domestic use and export.

“As the impacts of climate change increase, we expect to see more droughts,” said Karim Elgendy, a climate change and sustainability specialist at Chatham House think tank in London. “This means more countries would look for alternative locations for food production.”

Without groundwater pumping regulations, rural Arizona is especially attractive, said Elgendy, who focuses on the Middle East and North Africa. International corporations have also turned to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa to develop enormous farming operations criticized as “land grabbing.”

La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin welcomes a recent crackdown by Arizona officials on unfettered groundwater pumping long allowed in rural areas, noting local concerns about dried up wells and subsidence that’s created ground fissures and flooding during heavy rains.

“You’re starting to see the effects of lack of regulation,” she said. “Number one, we don’t know how much water we have in these aquifers, and we don’t know how much is being pumped out.”

Irwin laments that foreign firms are “mining our natural resource to grow crops such as alfalfa … and they’re shipping it overseas back to their country where they’ve depleted their water source.”

Gary Saiter, board chairman and general manager of the Wenden Domestic Water Improvement District, said utility records showed the surface-to-water depth at its headquarters was a little over 100 feet (30 meters) in the 1950s, but it’s now now about 540 feet (160 meters).

READ MORE: Drought’s impact on Mississippi River causes disruptions in shipping and agriculture

Saiter said that over those years, food crops like cantaloupe have been replaced with forage like alfalfa, which is water intensive.

“I believe that the legislature in the state needs to step up and actually put some control, start measuring the water that the farms use,” Saiter said.

Gov. Katie Hobbs in October yanked the state’s land lease on another La Paz County alfalfa farm, one operated by Fondomonte Arizona, a subsidiary of Saudi dairy giant Almarai Co. The Democrat said the state would not renew three other Fondomonte leases next year, saying the company violated some lease terms.

Fondomonte denied that, and said it will appeal the decision to terminate its 640-acre (259-hectare) lease in Butler Valley. Arizona has less control over Al Dahra, which farms on land leased from a private North Carolina-based corporation.

Glennon, the Arizona water policy expert, said he worked with a consulting group that advised Saudi Arabia more than a decade ago to import hay and other crops rather than drain its aquifers. He said Arizona also must protect its groundwater.

“I do think we need sensible regulation,” said Glennon. “I don’t want farms to go out of business, but I don’t want them to drain the aquifers, either.”

Seeking crops for domestic use and export, Al Dahra farms wheat and barley in Romania, operates a flour mill in Bulgaria, and owns milking cows in Serbia. It runs a rice mill in Pakistan and grows grapes in Namibia and citrus in Egypt. It serves markets worldwide.

The company is controlled by the state-owned firm ADQ, an Abu Dhabi-based investment and holding company. Its chairman is the country’s powerful, behind-the-scenes national security adviser Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a brother of ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The company did not respond to numerous emails and voicemails sent to its UAE offices and its subsidiary Al Dahra ACX in the U.S. seeking comment about its Arizona operation.

But on its website, Al Dahra acknowledges the challenges of climate change, noting “the continuing decrease in cultivable land and diminishing water resources available for farming.” The firm says it considers water and food security at ”the core of its strategy” and uses drip irrigation to optimize water use.

Foreign and out-of-state U.S. farms are not banned from farming in Arizona, nor from selling their goods worldwide. U.S. farmers commonly export hay and other forage crops to countries including Saudi Arabia and China.

WATCH: Despite owning rights to Colorado River, tribes largely cut off from accessing water

In Arizona’s Cochise County that relies on groundwater, residents worry that the mega-dairy operated there by Riverview LLP of Minnesota could deplete their water supplies. The company did not respond to a request for comment about its water use.

“The problem is not who is doing it, but that we are allowing it to be done,” said Kathleen Ferris, a senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “We need to pass laws giving more control over groundwater uses in these unregulated areas.”

A former director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Ferris helped draw up the state’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act that protects aquifers in urban areas like Phoenix but not in rural agricultural areas.

Many people mistakenly believe groundwater is a personal property right, Ferris said, noting that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled there’s only a property right to water once it has been pumped.

In Arizona, rural resistance to limits on pumping remains strong and efforts to create rules have gone nowhere in the Legislature. The Arizona Farm Bureau has pushed back at narratives that portray foreign agribusiness firms like Al Dahra as groundwater pirates.

The state is “the wild West” when it comes to groundwater, said Kathryn Sorensen, research director at the Kyl Center. “Whoever has the biggest well and pumps the most groundwater wins.”

“Arizona is blessed to have a very large and productive groundwater,” she added. “But just like an oil field, if you pump it out at a significant rate, then you deplete the water and it’s gone.”

Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai contributed to this report.

Born in the flames of resolutions: The history and underlying causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict

Yuriy Matsarsky

3 November 2023

LONG READ

Exactly 106 years ago, on November 2, 1917, the world witnessed the Balfour Declaration—an iconic, albeit concise, open letter. In this historic document, Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, de facto pledged Palestine to the Jewish people. What ensued was a century-old saga, where the Arab-Israeli conflict commenced as a territorial dispute between two nations vying for a small piece of the British Empire. However, the origins of this conflict delve far deeper, tracing their roots to ancient history and biblical narratives. Amidst this complex tapestry of events, even figures like the Bolsheviks, Joseph Goebbels, and Richard the Lionheart found their place, each playing a role in a conflict that remains unresolved to this very day.


CONTENT

The sacred city


How it all began


The redrawing of the world


Zion calling


The roots of terror


The war of independence

The sacred city

In December 1917, just eleven months before the conclusion of World War I, British forces made their entry into Jerusalem, a city deserted by the Ottomans. Within the city's walls, hunger and desolation reigned, and the soldiers bore the fatigue of a grueling, months-long Palestinian campaign. Although fresh battles loomed on the horizon, news of the capture of this hallowed city resonated in London as one of the most momentous triumphs in the entire war.

Prime Minister Lloyd George bestowed this victory with the title of a “Christmas gift to the British people.” Across the empire, the chimes of church bells reverberated, and newspapers, accustomed to offering mere glimpses of front-line updates, now featured inspiring illustrations. In these depictions, General Edmund Allenby, the commander of British forces in the Middle East, was portrayed receiving a divine blessing from none other than Richard the Lionheart, a medieval king whose life's mission was the conquest of the Holy Land, but who never succeeded in subduing Jerusalem.

The extraordinary significance attached to what might seem like an ordinary military victory can be ascribed to the fact that during the years of World War I, Britain was undergoing a spiritual renaissance. The unprecedented devastation had stirred a collective sense of anticipation about the impending end of the world, prompting people to seek solace in religion, particularly within the Protestant faith, which held official status in the empire. The return of Jerusalem to the dominion of a Christian monarch was embraced by the faithful as a testament to the inevitability of triumph and the righteousness of their cause.





British Artillery during the Battle for Jerusalem, 1917


It seemed that the sacred city, along with all of historical Palestine, would become yet another shining gem in the crown of the British Empire. However, there was a catch: the British had already promised to hand over Palestine to a completely different group of people, who also laid claim to it. What's more, they made this promise twice to different parties.

The first to whom the British agreed to grant the Holy Land was Sherif (ruler) of Mecca, Hussein, in 1916. At that time, Mecca was firmly under the Ottoman Empire's rule, and the Sherif remained subject to the Sultan's authority. However, Hussein held the belief that, as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, he possessed a far stronger entitlement to governance over the Arab territories than the Turks. In exchange for his assistance in the war against the Ottoman Empire, the British were willing to acknowledge Hussein's sovereignty, as well as that of his dynasty—the Hashemites. This dynasty was named after their legendary founder, Hashim, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad. In a confidential correspondence with the Sherif, the British undertook to formally recognize him as the ruler of all Arab lands “from Egypt to Persia.” This recognition excluded territories that had already been under the dominion of the British Empire or its protectorates before the outbreak of World War I.

In a confidential correspondence with the Sherif, the British undertook to formally recognize him as the ruler of all Arab lands “from Egypt to Persia”


As His Majesty's officials engaged in correspondence with the Sherif of Mecca, striving to ignite an Arab uprising deep within the Ottoman Empire, another group within the British government pondered how to win the support of an increasingly influential community of religious Zionists. The Zionist movement, with its core goal of establishing an independent Jewish state, extended beyond the Jewish community. Notably, it drew fervent interest from a contingent of Christians, particularly those of a literalist Protestant persuasion who adhered to a strict interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. These Christian supporters found resonance in the notion that the Holy Land should be returned to the Jews, as the Bible itself ordained.
How it all began

The Jews had been dispossessed of their homeland at the advent of a new era, subsequent to a series of ill-fated uprisings against the Roman Empire. Since that time, they had been scattered across the globe, Israel had ceased to exist, and had been rechristened Palestine by the Romans. Over the centuries, various kingdoms and empires had taken their turns in ruling the Holy Land. In the 7th century, Arab conquerors arrived, introducing Islam to the region. Subsequently, crusaders attempted to seize control, with limited success. About four centuries prior to World War I, the Ottoman Empire came to hold sway over Palestine. Yet, their dominion, too, had its twilight.

Both European Jews and Christian Zionists regarded the onset of World War I with tempered enthusiasm, perceiving it as yet another episode in the imperial redrawing of boundaries. In London, however, there was a concerted effort to convince the Zionists of the necessity of supporting the British military with financial, intellectual, and human resources. To accomplish this, the Zionists had to be convinced that the war was aligned with their interests, that the empire's triumph would also signify a victory for their faith. It was crucial to instill in both Jews and Christians the belief that the war wasn't a pursuit of territorial gain, but rather a struggle for the future of humanity and the salvation of human souls. Hence, the second promise of ceding Palestine was conceived, this time not to the Arabs but to the Jews.

It was crucial to instill in both Jews and Christians the belief that the war wasn't a pursuit of territorial gain, but rather a struggle for the future of humanity and the salvation of human souls


This promise was named the Balfour Declaration, essentially a short open letter addressed to one of the most influential British Jews, Lord Lionel Rothschild. In this letter, Arthur Balfour, who served as the British Foreign Secretary during World War I, conveyed the Empire's understanding of the Zionist movement and its readiness to facilitate the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.







Most likely, through such promises, the British aimed not only to align themselves with British Zionists but also to enlist the support of Jews in the Middle East, persuade Americans of the religious legitimacy of their entry into the war, and send a signal to Russian Jews, including members of the new Bolshevik government, about the inopportuneness of withdrawing from the war on the eve of the long-awaited rebirth of the Jewish state.

It is worth acknowledging that World War I could have been won even without the support of Arab tribes and wavering Zionists. The funds allocated by London to the forces led by self-proclaimed Arab King Hussein, totaling more than 11 million pound Sterling (equivalent to roughly a billion dollars in today's prices), enabled them to gain control only over a small and strategically insignificant desert region of the Ottoman Empire. Bolshevik Russia did eventually exit the war, and by the time of the Declaration's publication, the Americans not only entered the war but were already engaged on the European Western Front.

Nonetheless, in 1916 and 1917, victory remained far from certain. In the heart of London, apprehensions loomed that their Muslim subjects might revolt and form an alliance with the Ottoman Sultan, who also bore the mantle of the Caliph, the esteemed religious leader of the Islamic world. The British watched with concern as the United States, typically reticent to abandon its isolationist stance, reluctantly embraced the idea of entering the war. Fearing that the Americans might never commit to the conflict, the British, in turn, found themselves making promises that verged on the unattainable.

“We have given so many conflicting pledges that I do not understand whether we shall ever get out of this chaos without breaking our word,” lamented General Henry Wilson, head of the Imperial General Staff, in 1919, after the war had ended.
The redrawing of the world

Sir Wilson's somber premonitions proved to be true; the British found themselves unable to extricate from the convolution they had created, despite their earnest efforts. For instance, they left Hussein without the promised Near Eastern kingdom on the pretext that he had only been promised Arab lands, and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it suddenly became apparent that the Middle East was inhabited not only by Arabs but also by representatives of other nations. Moreover, the originals of the secret correspondence, in which these promises were made, mysteriously disappeared—lost in the archives, destroyed, or perhaps, as some officials insinuated, they never existed, and the cunning Hussein had fabricated the entire story.

As a kind of “consolation prize,” the aging Sherif was granted control over the Hijaz, a territory in the Arabian Peninsula that housed the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina. He had already ruled the Hijaz as the Sherif and later as the self-proclaimed monarch of all Arabs. In 1924, Hussein abdicated the throne in favor of his son Ali, but Ali's reign lasted only a few months. He lost to his competitors from the House of Saud, was stripped of his kingdom, and died in exile. Another of Hussein's sons, Faisal, managed to become the king, first of Syria and then of Iraq, where he founded an unpopular ruling dynasty that came to an end in 1953 along with the overthrow of the first king, Faisal II, the grandson of the initial Faisal. Only Hussein's son Abdullah succeeded in establishing a dynasty that still governs Jordan.

In truth, initially, all these thrones were largely symbolic, as for a long time, real control over the Middle East was exercised by the victors of the First World War, primarily Britain and France.

Formally, the former Ottoman territories were not incorporated into European empires but were assigned to them in the 1920s as so-called “mandate” territories. The precursor to the modern United Nations, the League of Nations, delegated the right to govern the fragments of defeated empires—the mandate—to the victorious states. In the early 20th century, openly racist ideas about African and Asian peoples as incapable of effective self-governance still prevailed in global politics.

It was envisaged that established democracies would assist them in the process of nation-building, maintaining political and economic control over these populations, as well as maintaining military presence in the territories of the new states. League of Nations' mandates were so indefinite and nebulous, and the durations of their applicability so obscure—until such time as these nations were deemed ready to assume responsibility for their own states—that, de facto, they transformed the mandate territories into colonies of European states, although de jure, as already mentioned, they did not incorporate them into their empires.

League of Nations' mandates de facto transformed the mandate territories into colonies of European states

Zion calling

One of the mandate territories that fell into British hands was Palestine. This land was inhabited by local Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, and Jews, of whom very few were born there, but their numbers were growing daily, largely due to London's promise to hand over these lands to create a “national homeland.” Though the term “national homeland” does not equate to the concept of a “sovereign state,” and the Balfour Declaration did not delineate clear boundaries for the future Jewish Palestine, the European and American Jews who flocked to the Middle East aspired to build their state precisely on those lands mentioned in the Bible as belonging to the Israelites.

It didn't take long for conflicts to erupt between the Arabs and the new Jewish arrivals. Foreign Jews seemed strange and dangerous interlopers to the Arabs. They accused them of taking advantage of the post-war devastation and poverty by buying land from impoverished local farmers for a pittance. Furthermore, they were reluctant to employ Arabs, preferring to hire fellow immigrant co-religionists, which exacerbated Arab impoverishment and marginalization.

Jews received substantial support from abroad – religious organizations, including Christian ones, provided funds, lobbied for their interests in Europe and the United States. However, local Arabs had nowhere to turn for assistance. Their kinsmen and co-religionists were divided among several new states, each beset with its own problems, and they lacked the money and international influence to help those living in Palestine. In the late 1920s, anti-Jewish riots erupted in Jerusalem and some other cities where Arabs and Jews lived in close proximity. At that time, it was not yet a full-scale uprising, but rather a series of rather bloody scattered attacks on Jews. However, the onset of a full-fledged Arab revolt was imminent.
The roots of terror

The military wing of the Hamas organization is known as the “Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.” The most common type of rocket launched by these brigades into Israel is also called the Qassam rocket. Several educational institutions in Gaza bear the name of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Syrian preacher who was one of the first to attempt to organize armed resistance against the European powers that divided the Middle East among themselves. After suffering defeat in his native Syria at the hands of the French, who controlled the region under a mandate from the League of Nations, in the early 1930s, he moved to neighboring Palestine and began organizing an armed underground.

His fighters, united under The Black Hand organization, attacked Jewish settlements and British patrols, burned orchards, and detonated administrative buildings, aiming to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine and end the British mandate. In response to the actions of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam's followers, the Jews established their underground fighting organization called the Irgun. Later, alongside other Jewish self-defense units that emerged in the early days of the British mandate, such as Haganah, the Irgun would become the foundation of the armed forces of the independent state of Israel. However, at that time, it was a genuine insurgent group.




Irgun poster calling for settlers to break through to Palestine


Arab and Jewish underground fighters clashed with each other and also opposed the British presence, which both Arabs and Jews viewed as a prolonged occupation.

In a 1935 skirmish with the British, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed, but this didn't halt Arab uprisings; it actually triggered new revolts that eventually evolved into a pan-Arab uprising in Palestine. This uprising spanned from 1936 to 1939 and aimed to halt Jewish immigration and abandon plans to create a Jewish “national homeland” in Palestine. The British managed to suppress the revolt through a combination of force and concessions.

In the midst of military operations and intimidation campaigns, approximately five thousand Arabs lost their lives, and several thousand were imprisoned or forced to flee across the border. This represented the punitive measures faced by Palestinian Arabs. The positive side was the introduction of a series of restrictions on Jews known as the “White Paper.”

Under pressure from protestors, the British agreed to ban the sale of Arab land to Jews and pledged to establish both Arab and Jewish states in Palestine within ten years, by 1949. Additionally, they, for the first time during the mandate, limited Jewish immigration. The number of Jews who had the right to officially settle in Palestine was capped at 25,000 people in 1939 and 20,000 people in the following four years.

The British pledged to establish both Arab and Jewish states in Palestine


The Jews, many of whom had assisted the British in suppressing the Arab revolt, perceived the publication of the White Paper as a betrayal of the commitments made to them in the Balfour Declaration. Moreover, as Europe became increasingly dangerous for Jews due to the rise of the Nazis, the revocation of their legal opportunity to escape such peril was seen as a grave injustice. In retaliation for the White Paper, the Irgun carried out executions of several British officers, but the outbreak of the Second World War temporarily reconciled the empire with Jewish underground groups. Many Irgun and Haganah fighters joined the British or allied forces and fought in Syria and Lebanon against the Vichy French.

In turn, influential Arab families placed their bets on the Germans as the main adversaries of the British. The Nazis, long before the war, portrayed themselves in their propaganda aimed at the Middle East as natural allies of the Arabs in the fight against “Jewish-British imperialism.” The German racial laws did not apply to Arabs, and the Bureau of Anti-Semitic Actions (Antisemitische Aktion) in Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda was renamed the Bureau of Anti-Jewish Actions (Antijüdische Aktion) to avoid angering Arab allies, who also belonged to Semitic peoples.

All of these actions shared similar objectives with the promises the British made to the Sharif of Mecca during World War I: to foment unrest and, ideally, provoke a full-scale uprising behind enemy lines. However, the German efforts proved to be even less effective. Even the most pro-German Arabs were unwilling to confront the still-powerful British Empire. There was no Arab uprising in the British rear. Nonetheless, a Jewish uprising did occur.

In 1944, Jewish underground fighters resumed their war against the British. This occurred after the true scale of the Holocaust in Europe became apparent, and after London, already aware of the fate of Jews in Nazi-occupied territories, had failed to abandon the White Paper. The Irgun did not hesitate to use terrorist tactics, with the climax being the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where British administrative offices were located. The attack resulted in 91 deaths.




The bombing of the King David on July 22, 1946


Simultaneously with the escalating military pressure, diplomatic efforts gained momentum. In 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman openly proclaimed his moral obligation to safeguard the Jewish people, who had endured significant suffering during World War II. This was a clear indication that the outdated mandate system needed to be brought to a close. Furthermore, within Britain itself, a growing number of people were questioning the necessity of maintaining distant overseas territories that were becoming increasingly complex and precarious.

The contours of the collapse of the once-mighty empire were already taking shape, with the Middle East serving as the most prominent stage for these developments. Before London departed from the Holy Land, in keeping with their promise, they formulated several plans for its division between Jews and Arabs. One of these proposals even suggested the relocation of all Palestinian Arabs to Jordan, which was also under British administration as per the League of Nations mandate.

One of the British proposals even suggested the relocation of all Palestinian Arabs to Jordan


None of these plans gained immediate support from either Arabs or Jews. Therefore, London deemed it best to transfer the task of planning the division of Palestine to the successor of the League of Nations – the United Nations. In 1947, the organization presented its plan, which allotted approximately 55% of the territory of the mandate Palestine to the Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state. Jerusalem was designated to come under the governance of an international administration accountable to the UN. The Arabs once again opposed this proposal.

Their representatives insisted that there was no need for the creation of a Jewish state, as the Jews who had immigrated to Palestine had their homelands – the countries from which they had emigrated – and they should return to them. The Arabs even threatened war against the Jews, which did not earn them sympathy, considering that World War II had ended not too long ago, and memories of the Holocaust were still fresh. Nevertheless, the war did eventually commence.
The war of independence

The path to this war unfolded gradually. In September 1947, the British administration made it known that they intended to withdraw from Palestine, leaving the fate of its inhabitants in their own hands. Just two months later, the United Nations endorsed a plan to partition the Holy Land into Arab and Jewish states. Following this decision, armed confrontations erupted in various regions of Palestine, as Arabs and Jews vied for control of cities, villages, and even individual farms. The British seldom intervened in these clashes, as they were hurriedly preparing for their departure, a task that had to be completed by May 14, 1948—a date chosen by London as the conclusion of their mandate.

As the final British ships with their soldiers remained anchored in the ports of Palestinian cities, awaiting the order to sail away, the Jewish population declared the establishment of their state—the rebirth of Israel. In response, the Arab neighbors of this newly formed state dispatched their troops to Palestine. Arab leaders believed that this intervention would be swift and victorious. They expected the armies of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon to simply take over from the departing British, prevent the formation of a Jewish state, disarm the Israelis, and transfer authority to local Arabs.




An Israeli officer raises the national flag for the first time on June 8, 1948


But everything didn't go as the Arab kings and generals had anticipated. Their armies fought without coordinating their actions, planning was practically absent, and supplying the troops became difficult because insufficient reserves of weapons, fuel, and provisions had been made by the command. Even the advantage of Arab armies in heavy equipment quickly evaporated. Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States managed to organize the purchase and delivery of artillery, armored vehicles, and even aircraft for the newly established Jewish state from Czechoslovakia, Italy, France, and several other countries.

The conflict drew to a close in July 1949 as Arab armies, one after the other, withdrew from Palestine, hampered by resource shortages and a waning desire to continue hostilities. Israel not only emerged victorious but as an unequivocal triumphant force. It extended its control over nearly 80% of the former Mandatory Palestine territory, including a portion of Jerusalem where international administration never came to fruition.

Israel not only emerged victorious but as an unequivocal triumphant force


What was a victory for the Israelis turned into a catastrophe for their Arab neighbors. This is officially referred to as “Nakba” in Arabic, signifying the war and its aftermath for Palestinians. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave their homes. Some did so out of fear of perishing in the crossfire, while others were driven by concerns of retribution from the Israelis for assisting Arab armies. However, many were expelled by Israeli forces. The new state's army was not willing to leave disloyal people in their rear and resorted to forced relocations.

Jews also faced expulsion from their homes, but not in Israel; it was the Jews living in Arab countries who experienced this. Following their defeat by Israel in the Middle East, a wave of anti-Jewish violence and discriminatory laws spread across these Arab lands. There were cases of beatings and lynchings. This ultimately led to a mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries to Israel. They brought with them bitter memories of displacement, which they passed down to their children and grandchildren.

Palestinians also harbor bitter memories. Many of them have lived in refugee camps for generations and cannot forgive the Israelis for taking away their homes. These memories, this inherited distrust passed down from generation to generation, make it impossible for the two peoples to reconcile once and for all. Too many Palestinians are not ready to accept that the Jews will permanently remain on the land they claim as their own. And too many Israelis are unwilling to give those Palestinians who haven't accepted the status quo the opportunity to establish their own state, where anti-Jewish sentiments will always find popularity and support.

Revolutionaries without borders: How exiled opposition brought change to their countries

Alexander Finiarel

20 November 2023

With only four months remaining until the presidential elections in Russia, in many other nations, this period would typically mark the peak of the political campaign. However, the relocation of Russian activists and journalists beyond the borders of their homeland, coupled with the definitive extinguishing of political life within the country, is once again sparking discussions about the opposition's capability to take action from abroad. The Insider has delved into global experiences and unearthed numerous examples from various regions worldwide, illustrating instances where opposition movements, operating from foreign soil, achieved remarkably impressive successes.

RU

CONTENT



Chile


Argentina


South Africa


Arab Spring


Anti-War Movements


What can opposition do in exile?


Avoiding Decline


At various points in the past, the Russian opposition found itself in exile, during which it harbored little conviction about playing a pivotal role in the revolution. In Switzerland, in January 1917, just a month before the decisive battles, Lenin articulated a somewhat skeptical perspective, stating, «We, the older generation, may not witness the conclusive battles of this impending revolution.» Meanwhile, his comrade Trotsky favored Vienna, where he spent his time at the Central café immersed in chess matches. There exists a historical anecdote involving Austrian politician Count Heinrich Clam-Martinic, who, when asked about the prospect of revolution in Russia, wittily responded, «Who will orchestrate this revolution? Perhaps Mr. Bronstein from the Central café?»

However surprising the events of 1917 might have been, it must be acknowledged that Russian revolutionaries in exile had not been idle. They published and disseminated propaganda, organized cells within the country, worked on programs, and when the opportune moment arrived, they were ready for it. Global experience shows that this is more of a rule than an exception: revolutions often occur in countries where censorship prohibits political activities, and leaders have to act from abroad.

Chile

Engaging in communication with supporters and conducting propaganda from abroad poses significant challenges, yet the opponents of Pinochet in Chile navigated this difficulty with notable effectiveness. The Solidarity Movement, dedicated to combating dictatorship, orchestrated a multi-year campaign that encompassed reaching out to Chileans through calls and letters from overseas. These efforts were aimed at enlightening them about the atrocities committed by the new regime. The junta members asserted that substantial sums, amounting to millions of dollars monthly, were allocated to the destruction of these letters. Moreover, they insisted that recipients promptly turn over such correspondence to the authorities.

In addition to dispatching letters and making calls, representatives of the Movement mobilized financial support for resistance efforts within the country and actively lobbied in the U.S. and other nations. In the United States, they found allies within the anti-war movement, dedicated to ending the Vietnam War, and the civil rights movement. Through the collaborative endeavors of the Chilean opposition, they successfully persuaded the U.S. to exert pressure on the Chilean government, urging a relaxation of censorship and repression leading up to the 1988 referendum on extending Pinochet's powers. The U.S. also earmarked funds to bolster the opposition within Chile, ensuring effective oversight of the voting process. Consequently, 56% of Chileans cast their votes against Pinochet's rule, marking the conclusion of the dictatorship.

Argentina

Juan Perón, the Argentine president ousted by the military in 1955, maintained communication with his supporters and union leaders, influencing the country's politics even though his party was banned, and he found himself in exile—first in Venezuela and later in Spain. In 1958, his supporters in the army attempted a coup but were exposed and executed.

Throughout his exile, Perón regularly advised his supporters on how to vote, significantly impacting election outcomes. When faced with the threat of a military uprising in 1973, the junta was forced to hold presidential elections. The candidate endorsed by Perón, Hector Jose Campora, won, but he resigned after a month, paving the way for new elections to allow Perón to be elected.

South Africa

The African National Congress (ANC), fighting against apartheid in South Africa, initially lost supporters after its ban and Nelson Mandela's arrest in the early 1960s. Initially operating from distant Tanzania and Zambia, by the mid-70s, as the Portuguese colonial empire collapsed and left-leaning governments took power in its former colonies Angola and Mozambique, they allowed the ANC to establish training bases closer to South Africa's borders. Additionally, the ANC could build schools, hospitals, farms, and factories on their territory, where exiles from South Africa worked.

This coincided with the intensification of apartheid within South Africa: the conflict between whites and non-whites escalated, prompting more of the latter to leave the country and join the ANC. From the 1970s, the ANC resumed terrorist activities in South Africa, and in response, South Africa conducted raids on ANC bases in Mozambique, causing the country to slide into chaos and increasing international isolation. Concurrently, the ANC continued its international public campaign, drawing attention to the apartheid system in South Africa and the imprisonment of its leader. Ultimately, this led to the fall of the apartheid regime and the ANC's ascension to power with Mandela at the helm.

Arab Spring

The Arab Spring refers to a series of uprisings that swept through much of the Arab world in the early 2010s. Diasporas played an active role in these uprisings. Firstly, they influenced public opinion in their host countries by publishing photos of protests and evidence of regime crimes, engaging with local authorities to garner support for the protesters. For instance, the Libyan British Business Council played a significant role in gaining recognition for the legitimacy of the Transitional National Council of Libya from Britain and other European countries. Secondly, they provided various forms of aid back home, from financial assistance to medicines and satellite phones. Some even returned to participate in the protests personally. Alongside their financial contributions, they brought knowledge acquired during their time in the West, which proved crucial during the post-revolutionary reconstruction. However, in the long run, the revolutions in Arab countries did not lead to significant successes in building democracy and the rule of law.

Anti-War Movements

The objective of political opposition in exile may not only be a change of power but also an end to war. Remembering this is particularly relevant in Russia, given the Bolsheviks' popularity due to their consistent and staunch anti-war stance during World War I. This position resonated widely in war-weary Russia, where the army was literally disintegrating on the front lines, helping the Bolsheviks seize control of the soldiers' and workers' soviets established after the February Revolution—a viable alternative power center compared to the waning popularity of the State Duma and the Provisional Government. However, the Russian example is not the only one. Consider the experience of American draft dodgers and Vietnam War deserters. More than a hundred thousand Americans left the country during that time, with many continuing to engage in anti-war activities in host countries. They published anti-war newspapers that later circulated in the U.S., including on military bases. In Paris, American deserters joined French anti-war groups and published the newspaper ACT. In Canada, American refugees formed the American Deserters Committee (ADC) with offices in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. It provided hostels for new arrivals and published the ADC Times newspaper. The participation of Vietnam War veterans in the movement against the «senseless» war legitimized it in the eyes of American patriots. The voices of soldiers and officers who fought for their country had a significant impact on changing public opinion and ultimately ending the war.

What can opposition do in exile?

When exile and the struggle against the regime drags on and on, the connection with the homeland gradually weakens, and those who have left integrate into new societies, losing interest in the struggle back home. One of the main challenges for opposition abroad becomes maintaining its activities and preserving oppositional organizations. One way for them to replenish and renew their ranks is through recruiting students from their home country abroad or the influx of new exiles. This was precisely how Ayatollah Khomeini, exiled from Iran in 1964, gained supporters. During his stay in Turkey, Iraq, and later in France, he managed to establish contacts with student organizations in Europe and the USA, as he continued his teaching activities. Not all students supported the idea of establishing an Islamic state in Iran, but they saw in Khomeini a leader in the struggle against the Shah, and thus, they helped him connect with Western press, NGOs, and governments, drawing attention to human rights violations by the regime. Returning students assisted in spreading Khomeini's ideas in Iran, contributing significantly to the victory of the Islamic revolution in 1979. Their subsequent disillusionment awaited them, but that's a completely different story.

The exiled opposition can provide material and legal support to its supporters abroad. For instance, the Tibetan government in exile issues passports («green books») to Tibetans residing outside China-controlled Tibet. These documents are partially recognized in India, where a significant portion (85 out of 128 thousand people) of the diaspora resides. These documents can serve as a basis for obtaining refugee status in some countries, such as Canada. In exchange for possessing this document, held by 90% of Tibetan diaspora members, the government collects an annual «voluntary tax.» Only holders of the «green book» can vote in elections held in Indian settlements where Tibetans live, receive benefits, and work in the Tibetan government in exile, located in the Indian town of Dharamsala in the foothills of the Himalayas.

Since the majority of Tibetan refugees, around a thousand people annually arriving from China to India, predominantly settle among their compatriots, their government can regularly conduct elections in such communities if their size exceeds 160 individuals. Officially, the Tibetan government in exile aims not for Tibet's independence (a desire of a significant part of the diaspora) but for preserving culture and religion. This objective is closely tied to India's requirements, which seeks to avoid conflict with China. Nonetheless, the Tibetan government supported partisans within Tibet for an extended period. Furthermore, it provides scholarships to Tibetans, manages its schools and hospitals in India, and engages in interactions with host countries.

The Belarusian diaspora also conducts active political activities abroad. The office of the elected president Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya assists Belarusians who found themselves in exile after the 2020 protests, providing humanitarian, psychological, and legal aid. Some of these efforts are directed towards activities in the West, ranging from political lobbying to organizing conferences and developing a strategy for Belarus's transition to democracy. However, it is inaccurate to say that the diaspora merely focuses on its own affairs. It leads the dissemination of samizdat in Belarus, organizes hacking attacks (Belarusian Cyber Partisans regularly conduct cyberattacks on and hacks government websites), and even participates in military operations. As part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they join in the military operations of the Kalinowski Regiment, consisting of Belarusian volunteers who believe that defeating the Putin army is the first step to liberate Belarus.

Avoiding Decline

Certainly, not every instance of emigration proves successful. The Russian diaspora, departing the homeland following the ascent of the Bolsheviks to power, never witnessed the long-awaited liberation of the country. Russia is not unique in this regard; another compelling example is the Chinese democratic movement abroad, emerging in the 1980s as China commenced its global opening and dispatched students to foreign shores. This movement reached its zenith in the early 1990s, spurred by the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which prompted a wave of students and intellectuals to flee the country.

Initially, political emigrants successfully garnered sustained attention from the United Nations regarding human rights violations within their home country through public campaigns. This advocacy nudged the nation toward modest political adjustments in exchange for maintaining a favorable trade environment, a necessity for China at that time. However, with the rise of the Chinese economy, trading partners increasingly turned a blind eye to human rights abuses. Notably, even Taiwan, China's primary ideological adversary, ceased funding the Chinese opposition. The enthusiasm of new Chinese migrants for supporting overseas opposition also waned as many of them built careers closely tied to China.

The primary weakness of the Chinese overseas opposition lay in its fragmentation and heterogeneity, hindering effective coordination of its efforts. Coincidentally, Russian White emigrants faced similar challenges, dividing into republicans and monarchists, with the latter further split among supporters of two different branches of the Romanov dynasty. However, determining whether this division is the cause of weakness or if weakness and the absence of a shared mission lead to factionalization remains a nuanced question.

The contemporary Chinese opposition abroad is gradually regaining strength. On one hand, this is fueled by escalating tensions between China and the U.S. On the other hand, it is a result of cooperation with other Chinese opposition movements: Tibetans, Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, as well as the banned religious movement Falun Gong. Since 2005, they have been holding an annual joint conference dedicated to China's policies and its relations with minorities and neighbors. Cooperation has enabled these groups to amplify each other's voices through joint protests and the sharing of resources and established connections.

Furthermore, the efforts of Chinese political emigrants over the past 30 years to build their own institutions are starting to bear fruit. They have established NGOs engaged in lobbying, organizations assisting persecuted Chinese immigrants in settling in new places, entities combating Chinese media propaganda, online educational platforms providing education in jurisprudence, human rights, international relations, fundraising, political science, and more. Additionally, there is the Institute for Democratic Transition in China, developing projects for democratic reforms in the country and ways to influence their implementation.

It's reasonable to recognize that, at present, these endeavors exert minimal influence on China. Nonetheless, the lessons from the Russian Revolution remind us not to lose hope prematurely; occasionally, it's merely a matter of being able to wait for the right moment.

“All is quiet, but it's not a good time to visit”: How anti-Semitic protests changed the lives of Dagestani Jews



LONG READ

Maria Alexeeva

17 November 2023

On November 14, the Russian Interior Ministry put on the wanted list the administrator of the Utro Dagestan Telegram channel, which had been calling for anti-Semitic riots in the republic. On October 29, a mob stormed Makhachkala airport looking for “Israeli refugees.” The authorities of Dagestan declared the riots “planned from the outside” and assured there was no anti-Semitism in the republic. Meanwhile, social media are rife with calls to stop renting apartments to Yahudi (the Arabic for “Jews”), and Dagestanis living in Israel are afraid to visit their relatives back home. Oded Forer, chair of the Knesset’s Immigration, Absorption, and Diaspora Affairs Committee has appealed to the Jewish community of Dagestan to leave for Israel. The Insider's correspondent traveled to Derbent, formerly home to the largest diaspora of Mountain Jews in the North Caucasus, and spoke with locals to find out how they live among the republic's mostly Muslim population and how the conflict in Israel is changing their lives.


CONTENT

“They're fighting for the Zionists!”


“We'd rather make do without flights than see something horrible happen”


“We're reasonable people and normally live in peace”


“Palestine, we stand with you!”


“How can you call for their expulsion? They're ours!”


RU

“They're fighting for the Zionists!”

The house on Sadovaya Street in the highland village of Nyugdi in Derbent District is empty. The neighbors haven't seen its owner, Livi Sadiyaev, 58, or his wife in days. His car service center in the neighboring village of Bilidzhi is also closed. The Sadiyaevs, who are Mountain Jews, left when Dagestanis essentially declared open season on the Jewish population.

“The Sadiyaev family lives in the village of Nyugdi, and two sons from this village are in Israel, fighting for the Zionists; their names are Aliran and Roni! It's not a hoax!” Such a post appeared in the Utro Dagestan Telegram channel, followed by calls for the persecution of Yahudi or “Zionists.” The channel was soon blocked, but the post went viral on other social networks, ruining the peaceful life of a family that had resided in Nyugdi for decades.







The hatred was triggered by a photo of a rocket taken by one of Livi's sons, who is fighting in the Israel Defense Forces against Hamas. On it, he wrote: “This is for you freaks, from the Sadiyaevs.” According to the neighbors, the father shared the photo with his acquaintances, expressing his approval. Both the image and his comment ended up on social media. Users in the comments began calling to “avenge the Palestinians.” The police secured Livi's house, and a video of Livi apologizing appeared on social media:

“I realize my mistakes and apologize to the Derbent District, Derbent, and all of Dagestan.”





“He who comes to us with a sword will die by the sword,” the village of Nyugdi, Sadovaya Street


The Sadiyaevs were one of the few remaining Jewish families in Nyugdi, historically a settlement of Mountain Jews. A strip of such communities is stretched across the modern southern Dagestan and northern Azerbaijan. Today Nyugdi has a predominantly Muslim population of just over 2,000 people, but in the 19th century, 68 of Nyugdi's 74 households were Jewish. In the 1990s, most of the Jews left Nyugdi for Israel, including Livi Sadiyaev's sons Eliran and Roni. Livi and his wife stayed, but no one can tell if it's safe for them to return to their home.

“Livi's a fool to have done that, of course. Why would he share it? He knows it was an emotional gesture. What's happened makes me very sad,” says Sabina (name changed), a resident of Nyugdi.

We’re standing outside the village council building, which was once a synagogue. Despite the recent renovation in 2009, the building looks as though it was about to fall apart. The village also has a functioning mosque and an Armenian church, but the Armenians are all gone, so the church is just a tourist attraction.





Police stopped patrolling Sadovaya Street after Livi Sadiyaev left


The shop assistants near the former synagogue speak Azerbaijani, as the village is about 20 kilometers from the border with Azerbaijan. Sabina, my interviewee, is Lezgin. According to Livi's neighbors, ethnic diversity was always key to preventing sectarian conflicts in the village.

“This is Livi's homeland,” says Sabina. “He was born here, studied, and performed with a band, singing songs of Mountain Jews. He fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s and then went into business and agriculture. How's he supposed to move now?”

“My heart goes out to him. He let his emotions get the better of him,” says local farmer Islam. “I myself have a son in the Russian army, fighting in the SVO [special military operation] for a year and a half. My heart hurts every day, so Livi’s probably does too. But not everyone is so understanding! The post came about when there was a rally at the airport, when passions were flying high, and our youth mostly supports Palestine. Now it seems things have changed for good.”





Nyugdi


For now, all is quiet in Nyugdi. Locals are harvesting persimmons and pomegranates and hope there will be no more unrest. Still, the air is filled with tension: the neighbors refuse to discuss the recent events, in stark contrast to Dagestanis’ habitual openness and loquacity. The shell photo, the harassment of the family, and the pogrom at the airport came as a shock to many, both in the village and in Derbent, which is now home to the largest community of Mountain Jews in the North Caucasus.
“We'd rather make do without flights than see something horrible happen”

“I don't think any Jews left Derbent after the pogrom at the airport. On the contrary, I believe people started coming back when the fighting in Israel broke out – if only to sit it out. Everyone is welcome,» says Vera, a hotel manager from Derbent. “We’ve got nothing to fight about. We've all lived here for a long time.”

I meet Vera at “Grisha's House,” a local landmark. Now a restaurant and art space, in the 20th century this building was owned by a famous Derbent businessman and philanthropist of Jewish origin. Dates, business meetings, underhanded deals – all sorts of things took place at “Grisha's House”.

Jews began to settle in Derbent in the 19th century, and its central district was soon even dubbed the Jewish Quarter. The area wasn't considered the most prestigious, but it wasn't the worst either. Armenians and Russians lived closer to the sea, says Vera. In 1917, Derbent had 11 synagogues, but the Soviet government later closed all of them, except for the now-active Kele-Numaz.





“Grisha's House” used to be the heart of Derbent


The pogroms at Makhachkala airport scared tourists away from Derbent, but not for long, according to employees of several hotels, including Vera’s. About one-third of her hotel's guests canceled reservations after Oct. 29. However, just a week later, new reservations started to come through.

The pogroms at Makhachkala airport scared tourists away from Derbent, but not for long


The storming of the airport “surprised and perplexed” Vera. Most of our interviewees described their emotions similarly. Vera didn’t realize the scale of what was happening until the barrage of calls from her concerned relatives and friends in Moscow, Baku, and Israel. They were offering her to leave Derbent and come stay with them, but she refused. She fears that moving will only add to her anxiety.

“Where's it easy now? This is my home. Not only Jews have a good reason to worry but also Christians, Muslims, and atheists. All reasonable people. Luckily, people are mostly reasonable around here. I know everyone,” the woman says. She’s lived in Dagestan all her life, but her daughter and son left, like many local Jews, and are now studying in Israel.

In their calls to search for Jews at the airport, the authors of the Utro Dagestan Telegram channel, which coordinated the protests, clarified that they were targeting refugees from Israel and not locals of Jewish origin. But Vera and many other Jewish community members were not reassured by this.





The rally outside the airport terminal in Makhachkala, October 29
Photo by Ramazan Rashidov / TASS / dpa / picture alliance


“They said they were against Zionists, Israelis, and not against us local Jews – but we have children and relatives in Israel!” the woman exclaims. “Maybe it's a good thing that flights from Tel Aviv have been canceled? Because a lot of people come to visit. Children come to check on their parents and vice versa. We have large families, five or six kids each, and then there are also nephews, brothers, and sisters. We'd rather make do without flights than see something horrible happen!”

The riot at the airport was not the first, but rather the last in the series of anti-Semitic protests in the North Caucasus. On the same day, a spontaneous rally in support of Palestine and against Israel was held in Makhachkala. In Nalchik, unknown individuals set fire to a Jewish center under construction and wrote “Death to Yahudi” on the building. On Saturday, October 28, a few dozen residents of Khasavyurt came to the Flamingo Hotel and demanded proof there were no Jews in the hotel, tossing stones at the building. A rally demanding to keep out “Jewish refugees” was also held in Cherkessk.

Derbent managed to avoid riots. All our interviewees are sure their city is too tolerant and peaceful for any kind of pogroms.





Derbent's “Jewish Quarter”


They interpret what happened as a one-time outburst of hatred triggered by some external influence, but no one knows what caused it in the first place. The topic makes everyone uneasy.
“We're reasonable people and normally live in peace”

“No, no, no! Neither I nor the head of the community will tell you anything about it today! Makhachkala told us to keep our heads down and our mouths shut,” said a representative of Derbent's Jewish community when asked how the storming of the airport had affected the lives of local Jews. He said the order “to avoid speculation” came from Moscow, where the community's chair and chief rabbi headed shortly after the riots. A couple of minutes later, Ilya (name changed) agreed to talk on condition of anonymity.

We meet him at the old Jewish cemetery in Derbent. The cemetery is more than 240 years old, Ilya says, and almost every local Jew has relatives buried here. “My mother is buried in Israel, but my father is buried here, and so is my grandmother, who raised me,” Ilya shares. “And I'm not leaving.”





A cemetery visitor and a worker lay tiles at a Jewish cemetery in Derbent


However, Ilya urges his relatives not to visit Dagestan for the time being. He has six children, five of whom are in Israel. They visit their father regularly – or rather, they did before the airport pogrom. The last ones to arrive in September were his daughter and grandson, who left a day before the pogrom.

“I told them all: sit tight, don't even think of coming! Let's wait till things get back to normal.”

Ilya urges his relatives not to visit Dagestan for the time being


Ilya doesn’t believe any Israelis will go to Russia to sit out the shelling, even if the war in the Gaza Strip drags on.

“Trust me, no Jew will ever come to Dagestan or Russia for love or money! I sometimes talk to my children and brothers and invite them to stay, but they always say Moscow will never be as good as Israel. We’re indeed preserving an entire state today. Even with the war going on, we'll keep it. All the more so considering the war’s not all over Israel.”

Israel's ambassador to Russia has urged Israelis not to visit the North Caucasus until Russian authorities declare it safe to do so. So far, there have been no such assurances, though the leadership of Dagestan is trying its best to show the absence of the problem. Ilya also insists there’s no threat to Jews in Dagestan, that “the head of the republic and Vladimir Putin have everything under control and everything will be nice and quiet, without any chaos.”





Stickers in support of Palestine in Derbent


“Local Jews sometimes marry non-Jews: Dargins, Avars, Lezgins. One of my sons, who lives in Moscow, has an Avar wife. I remember him coming to me and saying: ‘Dad, I really like her!’ What was I to do?” explains my interviewee. “Maybe that's why we reasonable people normally live in peace. We need to show humanity in some matters, not dogmatism.”

At the same time, about 70% of Derbent's Jews are religious, Ilya claims. As he recalls, once upon a time dozens of young men and girls in Derbent gathered to study Torah. Today young people are less “preoccupied” with religious issues. «To be religious, you have to read it all, study it all! Ilya shows a book wrapped in a black cover that he brought with him. This is the Torah: Mountain Jews wrap holy books in a double cloth cover. Unlike in other Jewish communities, it’s against their tradition to touch the books with bare hands.

Cemetery workers who are installing a tombstone on a nearby grave overhear our conversation with Ilya. One of them chips in to answer my question about the spread of radical Islam among Dagestani youth:

“They listen to some preachers online and then teach us how to pray. They teach old people to pray, can you imagine that? They think they are better Muslims than we are! Our society has always been very tolerant, in a good sense. But they're hardliners. They don't listen to us. As they say, it's not our tradition. We've never had anything like this before.”





“Caliphate” and “Islamic Caliphate” graffiti appear on buildings, fences, and transformers in and outside Makhachkala


His buddy also mentions religious arguments with the younger generation:

“My neighbor's grandson says to me: ‘You should pray more as you absolve yourself of your sins with every prayer!’ And I say: ‘So why do you sin so much that you have to pray all the time?’”

Ilya and the cemetery workers explain the events at the airport as a “foreign invasion,” agreeing with the head of the republic, Sergey Melikov. My interviewees believe the authorities should reach out to radical youth to avoid repeating the situation.

“Do they engage with young people? Are there any initiatives?”

“Well... the other day Vladimir Putin held a meeting with representatives of all confessions,” Ilya says after a pause. As if correcting himself, he continues: “In fact, Russia’s never had a president like him, believe me. Even under the Romanovs, there was no such order and such authority in Russia as there is now!”

Both the community leadership and the Dagestani government delicately deny the existence of any inter-confessional enmity, either in the past or at present. Officially, there’s no anti-Semitism in Derbent, and the events at the airport were an isolated incident. But the synagogue in Derbent closed its doors for 10 days for security reasons “because a lot of people come there to pray,” my interviewee explained.

Officially, there’s no anti-Semitism in Derbent, and the events at the airport were an isolated incident





Kele-Numaz Synagogue in Derbent


We say goodbye to Ilya late at night. Lastly, I ask him if he felt personally threatened after the events at the airport. He is evasive. “Thank God, we were lucky here in Derbent, and the riots didn't spill over. Dargins, Lezgins live with us; we are one. We hang out and drink tea; we visit each other. For me, they’re neighbors first of all, and whether they are Avar or Lezgin Muslim doesn't matter to me. We have 36 nationalities here, and we’re all like brothers.”

However, local taxi drivers have trouble fitting into the picture of universal friendship that Ilya, Vera, and other Derbent interviewees so diligently painted for me: “I'm sick of the Jews! They sully Russia. They sully the entire world. Local, non-local, whatever. They're getting cocky. We saved them in the Great Patriotic War, 20 million died, and now they’ve turned against Russia. They’re helping the Banderites!” rants Abdulnasir, a 60-year-old taxi driver. He doesn’t seem to remember that Jews died on WWII battlefields alongside representatives of other nationalities, even though the Jewish cemetery in Derbent has a huge monument in memory of the Jews killed during the war.





A WWII memorial in Derbent to honor the fallen Jews


In another taxi, from Derbent to Makhachkala, driver Ali argues with the other passenger about anti-Jewish sanctions: “I’ve deleted Yandex Taxi altogether, because all of the team is Jewish, and they support this war,” Ali explains. He’s 20 or so, a Kaspiysk native, and a supporter of Palestine. He recalls that he was at the airport on the day of the pogrom, to “support the brothers.” But he wouldn't go into the terminal building. “I pick up passengers there. I know there are cameras everywhere, and I don't want any trouble.”





The closer you get to Makhachkala, the more cars have stickers in support of Palestine


Police cars are whizzing by with sirens blaring. Law enforcers were deployed in Makhachkala and on the roads leading to the Dagestani capital because the day before, Telegram channels started posting calls for a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli rally in the city center. “Traffic cops are everywhere now, even in places where we haven't seen any in a while. Policemen are patrolling the entrances and exits of villages in Khasavyurt and Kizilyurt districts, and there are even more in the towns,” warns a Dagestani pro-Palestinian Telegram channel.

“Palestine, we stand with you!”

We drive to Makhachkala via Kaspiysk, where “a lot of young people sympathize with the Palestinians,” Ali tells me. It was from Kaspiysk and Buynaksk, he said, that most of the participants in the October 29 airport rally arrived. Occasionally, we are overtaken by cars with “Palestine, we stand with you!” stickers. At a traffic circle near the airport, someone stretched a huge Palestinian flag.

On the morning of the rally, anti-Israeli stickers and posters appeared in Makhachkala, calling to boycott Israeli products, not to rent apartments or houses to “Jewish refugees,” and to refuse them service in restaurants and taxis. “All of you are witnesses to how Palestine has sheltered them and the gratitude it has received,” said a publication on a now-blocked Telegram channel. “Today Palestinian children are dying at their hands, and tomorrow it could affect our people.”

One of the pro-Palestinian stickers appeared outside a synagogue despite the building being guarded 24 hours a day by the police. Like in Derbent, the synagogue in Makhachkala has also been closed.

On the evening of November 5, police from all over Dagestan were summoned to Magomed Yaragsky Street, the projected location of the rally: 20 cars per 300 meters, and that's not taking into account the cars and police vans parked in the alleys.





Police officers near Magomed Yaragsky Street


Since Telegram channels had been summoning locals to the protest for several days, the law enforcers had spared no effort in preparing. But other than police officers, no one came, unlike the airport, which was flooded with protesters in less than a couple hours.





Police officers stop and inspect cars on Magomed Yaragsky Street on November 5


“Attended by thousands of law enforcers, the rally for Palestine and in support of the detainees at Makhachkala airport turned out to be a success,” joked social media users on the next day.
“How can you call for their expulsion? They're ours!”

The taxi driver Ali, his passenger, and the elderly driver from Derbent were the only Dagestanis I met who spoke out harshly against both the Israelis and the local Jews. All other Muslims, both young and old, called the actions of the rioters stupid.

“They ruined their own airport. To what end? How does this help the Palestinians?” wonders shawarma chef Aziz. His shop window features a sticker in support of Palestine. But he’s sure Dagestani Jews can't be held responsible for Israel's operation. “They’ve lived here for many years. Their ancestors lived here. This is their homeland too, not Israel, so how can you call for their expulsion? They’re ours! No one’s ever oppressed them here,» Aziz says, and I lose count of the number of times someone said there's no anti-Semitism in Dagestan.





A poster in support of Palestine in a courtyard on Gamidov Avenue, Makhachkala


In reality, there have been episodes in the history of the North Caucasus when intolerance towards local Jews drove them from their homes.

There have been episodes in the history of the North Caucasus when intolerance towards local Jews drove them from their homes


Thus, Jewish communities in Grozny, Nalchik, Kizlyar, and other Russian strongholds emerged after Mountain Jews had to leave some villages, where a surge of intolerance towards non-Muslims during the Caucasian War triggered pogroms and reprisals. On the whole, the Jews of the imperial North Caucasus fared much better than their counterparts throughout Russia. Derbent was the only city in the empire where the authorities disregarded the decree on the Pale of Settlement.





The first Russian-Jewish school in Derbent (1904)


Outbursts of anti-Semitism occurred under Soviet rule as well. In 1926, there was a Jewish pogrom in Makhachkala, initiated by rumors that Mountain Jews had allegedly killed a Muslim child for ritual purposes. The pogroms spread to several settlements, including even tolerant, ethnically diverse Derbent. A similar story happened in the 1960s when a “blood libel” almost led to riots in Buynaksk. Pogroms were then avoided.

In the 1990s, many Jews left the Caucasus and moved to Israel. Their motivation wasn’t purely economic: during the Chechen wars, there were cases of kidnapping for ransom throughout the North Caucasus, including in Makhachkala and Buynaksk. “It's the least risky to kidnap a Jew as there’s no tukhum (clan) behind them. Jews are afraid to complain to anyone and will give up their homes and all their property acquired over several generations without a word, just to preserve the life of a loved one,” the Naslediye portal quoted a Dagestani official as saying in 2001.

In recent years, there have been almost no anti-Jewish protests in Dagestan, except for rare cases of domestic anti-Semitism. But in 2013, Rabbi Ovadya Isakov of the Derbent synagogue survived an assassination attempt. An unidentified man shot him five times at night, and the rabbi was hospitalized in serious condition. Russia's Investigative Committee concluded that the attack could have been linked to Isakov's religious activities. Russia's Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar blamed the jihadist underground for the attack.

Be that as it may, Isakov didn’t leave Dagestan and still holds his position. After the events at Makhachkala airport, he said the situation in the region was complicated and that people were scared. Moreover, he doesn’t feel safe and doesn’t rule out the need to evacuate Jews from Dagestan if this kind of unrest continues. All my interviewees, however, believe this will not be the case and hope they’ll be able to stay in their home region.