sábado, 22 de fevereiro de 2014

Ukraine: 'The dictatorship has fallen.' But what will take its place? / The Guardian. In Ukraine, fascists, oligarchs and western expansion are at the heart of the crisis / The Guardian. Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine.The New York Review.of books.

Protesters wave the Ukrainian flag in front of the residence of president Viktor Yanukovych. Photograph: Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA

Former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko speaks during a rally in Kiev after her release from prison. Photograph: Maxim ShipenkovEPA

Ukraine: 'The dictatorship has fallen.' But what will take its place?
It was a day of incredible drama throughout Ukraine. After a week of bloody protests the president finally fled, the police melted away and the opposition seized control. Ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko was released and addressed huge crowds in Kiev. Shaun Walker and Harriet Salem report
Shaun Walker and Harriet Salem in Kiev

As one disgraced president fled Kiev in the early hours of Saturday morning, so another aspiring one had landed in the city by evening. Within a few hours of being released from her prison hospital in the eastern city of Kharkiv, Yulia Tymoshenko had flown to Kiev and was being wheeled into Independence Square to address the crowds.

Hunched in a wheelchair, needed because of back problems, but with a resolute expression and her hair pulled into her trademark plait, she yelled rousing words from the stage to the crowd, telling them they must stay in central Kiev until their work was over, and those responsible for the violence are punished.

"If we let those who shot bullets into the hearts of our heroes escape responsibility, if we forgive them, it will be our shame for ever," she said, in a voice cracked with emotion. She had earlier said she plans to run for president, in elections that could now come as early as May. "Our homeland will from today on be able to see the sun and sky as a dictatorship has fallen," she added.
Not everyone in Ukraine likes Tymoshenko; indeed, far from everyone on Independence Square likes her, as could be divined from the lukewarm reaction she was given. Her words of support for the protest and of grief for the dead were well received, but only a minority joined in the chanting of her name.

Nonetheless, few would dispute her extraordinary political acumen, something that has been acutely missing from the opposition leaders since protests broke out in Ukraine, as they have uneasily surfed the waves of discontent rather than directed events. Although she appears far more frail, aged and incapacitated than she did when she was last in the public eye, she clearly still retains her fiery political ambition.

"I am returning to work, she said. "I will not miss a minute, in order to help you again feel happy in your own land."

In an extraordinary symmetry, as Tymoshenko's plane was landing in Kiev, there were rumours that ousted leader Viktor Yanukovych's jet was being denied permission to leave the country. In a stilted television address earlier in the evening, he announced he was still the president, but few others seemed to believe him. His exact location was unclear throughout the day, but it could be said with certainly that he was not at home, and half of Kiev turned up to his residence to see for themselves. With its pine pavilions, covered tennis courts, bubbling fountains and palatial residences, the Mezhyhirya compound provided Ukrainians with a striking picture of the bloated corruption of Yanukovych and his clan.
Few had any doubts as to the level of wealth he had amassed for himself, and the compound itself has been the subject of swirling rumours for some time. But seeing the wealth of riches with their own eyes still took their breath away.

Thousands streamed to his residence, a 40-minute drive from central Kiev, to see the epicentre of the regime they have been protesting against for three months. Yanukovych has only rarely appeared in public since the crisis began in early December. He was presumably pacing the miles of paved walkways amid the lakes, fountains and exotic pet collection, trying to weigh up the pressure from Russia to crack down against the pressure from the west to make concessions.

And then, suddenly, he was gone. His residence was unguarded, the control booths dotted along the high, forest-green security perimeter empty, and the police barracks at the back deserted. People streamed past the x-ray machine at the entrance to the compound, making mockery of a large sign warning that only those with official permission were allowed to pass this point.

"Walking around here, I get the impression that Ukraine should be a very rich country," said 22-year-old Anton, who was not part of the protest movement but lives in a village near the compound and arrived after reading online that it was possible to get in. "All of this, all of it, is paid for with our money, with the people's taxes."

It was not only the president who had disappeared. Along with him went the cordons of riot police in the centre of the capital, and indeed all signs of central authority, as Kiev appeared fully under the control of the protest movement. A few days ago the massed lines of police guarding government buildings and the presidential residence appeared impenetrable. They evaporated without a trace overnight.

On Saturday morning the parliament and the presidential administration compound in central Kiev were guarded by the protesters. They had also set up checkpoints at a number of key points on roads entering the city.
The only visible presence of authority was a quartet of traffic police, trying in vain to direct the huge flow of cars heading for the presidential residence. "We are just here to try to avoid traffic jams – we are working as usual," said one. Asked where the regular police were, he merely shrugged.

Late in the evening, a few police were visible outside the SBU security services building, with Ukrainian armbands tied to their arms to denote loyalty to the protest. They said they were from a division that guards foreign embassies, and were working in collaboration with the protesters. Inside the SBU building, there was a meeting between protest leaders and intelligence officials, in yet another sign that Yanukovych's grip on the capital is well beyond salvation.

Throughout the day, funeral services were held on Independence Square for the victims of last week, and in front of the main stage, coffins were still laid out in the rain. In the Obolon district, people paid their final respects to Sergey Shapoval. The 44-year-old, who was shot twice in the chest by snipers, was just one of 77 people to die in the capital during the bloodiest week in Ukraine's post-independence history. He was returned to his family home in an open casket. Pink, red and yellow carnations, brought by the mourners, covered his body.

A bearded Orthodox priest dressed in black robes performed an open-air farewell ceremony to an audience of around 70 family members and friends, who clutched at candles and crossed themselves. "It is the highest quality of person who gives his life for his friends," he intoned, splashing holy water across the body and performing religious rituals with perfumed incense smoke. "God show mercy to his soul."

His elderly mother, Katerina, stooped over the coffin, caressed her son's grey face and hair and wailed in grief. "Why did you leave me? See how many people have come here to see you pass. There is no life left in you. May the bastards that did this to you feel this on their own children."

Shapoval's neighbours and friends described him as a kind, generous and softly spoken man who had no radical views but felt it was his duty to stand with the protest movement, even when things got violent. His girlfriend, Olga Streltsova, is a volunteer medic helping with the protest movement, and said she last saw him a few hours before he died. "I was worried about him so I tried to get in contact, but he didn't answer his phone any more, he was dead," she said, tears streaming down her face. "He loved his country, he wanted the best for it. He died for this country – he gave everything to it."

Back at Yanukovych's compound, the mood was one of joy mixed with disbelief. A man wearing combat fatigues stood on top of a car and took to a loudspeaker to announce: "This is the day we were waiting for – today that day has come."

An advance group of protesters had entered the complex early in the morning, finding it deserted, and kept everyone else out for several hours, claiming they were checking the territory for mines.
Once the gates were opened, there were entreaties that nothing should be looted or vandalised, which were met with enthusiastic applause, and, at least in the first hours, nobody attempted to break into any of the buildings. Instead they made do with peeks through the windows into marbled reception rooms lined with malachite vases and chandeliers. The main residence was a huge, five-storey wooden mansion, with twin balconies overlooking the vast expanse of the Dnieper river and adorned with faux-classical columns.

An MP from the nationalist Svoboda party, Eduard Leonov, said that in future the complex should become a sanatorium for disabled children and orphans. Astounded visitors gawped at riches on display as if they were visitors on a tour of a historical site. They took selfies by the sauna complex, the vintage car collection and the fountains.

The complex is so large that it took hours to walk around, and new discoveries were made all the time. By the river was a dock, a wooden boat decked out as a restaurant, an aviary filled with exotic birds and a petting zoo complete with antelope and pigs. A golf course stretched as far as the eye could see, and a smooth asphalted road led to a helipad.

A mirrored dome emerging from the ground turned out to be the roof of an underground boxing ring, while a pagoda housed a giant barbecue, complete with a grilling tray, skewers and stacks of firewood to create the perfect presidential kebab.

The situation in Kiev remains as unpredictable as it has been for most of the past three months, but one thing seems clear – Yanukovych is unlikely ever to live in this vast compound again. Although on Saturday evening he was still claiming to rule Ukraine, those touring the grounds said it was impossible.

"I work in construction, I know how much it must have cost to build something like this," said 41-year-old Alexander Mironyuk, shaking his head as he recorded a video of the grounds on his mobile phone. "Once everyone sees how he lived, there will be no way back for him. This is just disgusting."

In Ukraine, fascists, oligarchs and western expansion are at the heart of the crisis
The story we're told about the protests gripping Kiev bears only the sketchiest relationship with reality
Seumas Milne

We've been here before. For the past couple of months street protests in Ukraine have been played out through the western media according to a well-rehearsed script. Pro-democracy campaigners are battling an authoritarian government. The demonstrators are demanding the right to be part of the European Union. But Russia's president Vladimir Putin has vetoed their chance of freedom and prosperity.

It's a story we've heard in one form or another again and again – not least in Ukraine's western-backed Orange revolution a decade ago. But it bears only the sketchiest relationship to reality. EU membership has never been – and very likely never will be – on offer to Ukraine. As in Egypt last year, the president that the protesters want to force out was elected in a poll judged fair by international observers. And many of those on the streets aren't very keen on democracy at all.

You'd never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings. One of the three main opposition parties heading the campaign is the hard-right antisemitic Svoboda, whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok claims that a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" controls Ukraine. But US senator John McCain was happy to share a platform with him in Kiev last month. The party, now running the city of Lviv, led a 15,000-strong torchlit march earlier this month in memory of the Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, whose forces fought with the Nazis in the second world war and took part in massacres of Jews.

So in the week that the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army was commemorated as Holocaust Memorial Day, supporters of those who helped carry out the genocide are hailed by western politicians on the streets of Ukraine. But Svoboda has now been outflanked in the protests by even more extreme groups, such as "Right Sector", who demand a "national revolution" and threaten "prolonged guerrilla warfare".

Not that they have much time for the EU, which has been pushing Ukraine to sign an association agreement, offering loans for austerity, as part of a German-led drive to open up Ukraine for western companies. It was Viktor Yanukovych's abandonment of the EU option – after which Putin offered a $15bn bailout – that triggered the protests.

But Ukrainians are deeply divided about both European integration and the protests – largely along an axis between the largely Russian-speaking east and south (where the Communist party still commands significant support), and traditionally nationalist western Ukraine. Industry in the east is dependent on Russian markets, and would be crushed by EU competition.

It's that historic faultline at the heart of Ukraine that the west has been trying to exploit to roll back Russian influence since the 1990s, including a concerted attempt to draw Ukraine into Nato. The Orange revolution leaders were encouraged to send Ukrainian troops into Iraq and Afghanistan as a sweetener.

Nato's eastward expansion was halted by the Georgian war of 2008 and Yanukovych's later election on a platform of non-alignment. But any doubt that the EU's effort to woo Ukraine is closely connected with western military strategy was dispelled today by Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that the abortive pact with Ukraine would have been "a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security".

Which helps to explain why politicians like John Kerry and William Hague have been so fierce in their condemnation of Ukrainian police violence – which has already left several dead – while maintaining such studied restraint over the killing of thousands of protesters in Egypt since last year's coup.

Not that Yanukovych could be mistaken for any kind of progressive. He has been backed to the hilt by billionaire oligarchs who seized control of resources and privatised companies after the collapse of the Soviet Union – and fund opposition politicians and protesters at the same time. Indeed, one interpretation of the Ukrainian president's problems is that the established oligarchs have had enough of favours granted to an upstart group known as "the family".

It's anger at this grotesque corruption and inequality, Ukraine's economic stagnation and poverty that has brought many ordinary Ukrainians to join the protests – as well as outrage at police brutality. Like Russia, Ukraine was beggared by the neoliberal shock therapy and mass privatisation of the post-Soviet years. More than half the country's national income was lost in five years and it has yet fully to recover.

But nor do the main opposition and protest leaders offer any kind of genuine alternative, let alone a challenge to the oligarchy that has Ukraine in its grip. Yanukovych has now made sweeping concessions to the protesters: sacking the prime minister, inviting opposition leaders to join the government and ditching anti-protest laws passed earlier this month.

Whether that calms or feeds the unrest will be clear soon enough. But the risk of the conflict spreading – leading political figures have warned of civil war – is serious. There are other steps that could help defuse the crisis: the creation of a broad coalition government, a referendum on EU relations, a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system and greater regional autonomy.

The breakup of Ukraine would not be a purely Ukrainian affair. Along with China's emerging challenge to US domination of east Asia, the Ukrainian faultine has the potential to draw in outside powers and lead to a strategic clash. Only Ukrainians can overcome this crisis. Continuing outside interference is both provocative and dangerous.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine
Timothy Snyder /

The students were the first to protest against the regime of President Viktor Yanukovych on the Maidan, the central square in Kiev, last November. These were the Ukrainians with the most to lose, the young people who unreflectively thought of themselves as Europeans and who wished for themselves a life, and a Ukrainian homeland, that were European. Many of them were politically on the left, some of them radically so. After years of negotiation and months of promises, their government, under President Yanukovych, had at the last moment failed to sign a major trade agreement with the European Union.

When the riot police came and beat the students in late November, a new group, the Afghan veterans, came to the Maidan. These men of middle age, former soldiers and officers of the Red Army, many of them bearing the scars of battlefield wounds, came to protect “their children,” as they put it. They didn’t mean their own sons and daughters: they meant the best of the youth, the pride and future of the country. After the Afghan veterans came many others, tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, now not so much in favor of Europe but in defense of decency.

What does it mean to come to the Maidan? The square is located close to some of the major buildings of government, and is now a traditional site of protest. Interestingly, the word maidan exists in Ukrainian but not in Russian, but even people speaking Russian use it because of its special implications. In origin it is just the Arabic word for “square,” a public place. But a maidan now means in Ukrainian what the Greek word agora means in English: not just a marketplace where people happen to meet, but a place where they deliberately meet, precisely in order to deliberate, to speak, and to create a political society. During the protests the word maidan has come to mean the act of public politics itself, so that for example people who use their cars to organize public actions and protect other protestors are called the automaidan.

The protesters represent every group of Ukrainian citizens: Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers (although most Ukrainians are bilingual), people from the cities and the countryside, people from all regions of the country, members of all political parties, the young and the old, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Every major Christian denomination is represented by believers and most of them by clergy. The Crimean Tatars march in impressive numbers, and Jewish leaders have made a point of supporting the movement. The diversity of the Maidan is impressive: the group that monitors hospitals so that the regime cannot kidnap the wounded is run by young feminists. An important hotline that protesters call when they need help is staffed by LGBT activists.

On January 16, the Ukrainian government, headed by President Yanukovych, tried to put an end to Ukrainian civil society. A series of laws passed hastily and without following normal procedure did away with freedom of speech and assembly, and removed the few remaining checks on executive authority. This was intended to turn Ukraine into a dictatorship and to make all participants in the Maidan, by then probably numbering in the low millions, into criminals. The result was that the protests, until then entirely peaceful, became violent. Yanukovych lost support, even in his political base in the southeast, near the Russian border.

After weeks of responding peacefully to arrests and beatings by the riot police, many Ukrainians had had enough. A fraction of the protesters, some but by no means all representatives of the political right and far right, decided to take the fight to the police. Among them were members of the far-right party Svoboda and a new conglomeration of nationalists who call themselves the Right Sector (Pravyi Sektor). Young men, some of them from right-wing groups and others not, tried to take by force the public spaces claimed by the riot police. Young Jewish men formed their own combat group, or sotnia, to take the fight to the authorities.

Although Yanukovych rescinded most of the dictatorship laws, lawless violence by the regime, which started in November, continued into February. Members of the opposition were shot and killed, or hosed down in freezing temperatures to die of hypothermia. Others were tortured and left in the woods to die.

During the first two weeks of February, the Yanukovych regime sought to restore some of the dictatorship laws through decrees, bureaucratic shortcuts, and new legislation. On February 18, an announced parliamentary debate on constitutional reform was abruptly canceled. Instead, the government sent thousands of riot police against the protesters of Kiev. Hundreds of people were wounded by rubber bullets, tear gas, and truncheons. Dozens were killed.

The future of this protest movement will be decided by Ukrainians. And yet it began with the hope that Ukraine could one day join the European Union, an aspiration that for many Ukrainians means something like the rule of law, the absence of fear, the end of corruption, the social welfare state, and free markets without intimidation from syndicates controlled by the president.

The course of the protest has very much been influenced by the presence of a rival project, based in Moscow, called the Eurasian Union. This is an international commercial and political union that does not yet exist but that is to come into being in January 2015. The Eurasian Union, unlike the European Union, is not based on the principles of the equality and democracy of member states, the rule of law, or human rights.

On the contrary, it is a hierarchical organization, which by its nature seems unlikely to admit any members that are democracies with the rule of law and human rights. Any democracy within the Eurasian Union would pose a threat to Putin’s rule in Russia. Putin wants Ukraine in his Eurasian Union, which means that Ukraine must be authoritarian, which means that the Maidan must be crushed.

The dictatorship laws of January 16 were obviously based on Russian models, and were proposed by Ukrainian legislators with close ties to Moscow. They seem to have been Russia’s condition for financial support of the Yanukovych regime. Before they were announced, Putin offered Ukraine a large loan and promised reductions in the price of Russian natural gas. But in January the result was not a capitulation to Russia. The people of the Maidan defended themselves, and the protests continue. Where this will lead is anyone’s guess; only the Kremlin expresses certainty about what it all means.

The protests in the Maidan, we are told again and again by Russian propaganda and by the Kremlin’s friends in Ukraine, mean the return of National Socialism to Europe. The Russian foreign minister, in Munich, lectured the Germans about their support of people who salute Hitler. The Russian media continually make the claim that the Ukrainians who protest are Nazis. Naturally, it is important to be attentive to the far right in Ukrainian politics and history. It is still a serious presence today, although less important than the far right in France, Austria, or the Netherlands. Yet it is the Ukrainian regime rather than its opponents that resorts to anti-Semitism, instructing its riot police that the opposition is led by Jews. In other words, the Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.

The strange thing about the claim from Moscow is the political ideology of those who make it. The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.

The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.

The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia.

Later that year Motherland was banned from taking part in further elections after complaints that its advertisements incited racial hatred. The most notorious showed dark-skinned people eating watermelon and throwing the rinds to the ground, then called for Russians to clean up their cities. Glazyev’s book Genocide: Russia and the New World Order claims that the sinister forces of the “new world order” conspired against Russia in the 1990s to bring about economic policies that amounted to “genocide.” This book was published in English by Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine Executive Intelligence Review with a preface by LaRouche. Today Executive Intelligence Review echoes Kremlin propaganda, spreading the word in English that Ukrainian protesters have carried out a Nazi coup and started a civil war.

The populist media campaign for the Eurasian Union is now in the hands of Dmitry Kiselyov, the host of the most important talk show in Russia, and since December also the director of the state-run Russian media conglomerate designed to form national public opinion. Best known for saying that gays who die in car accidents should have their hearts cut from their bodies and incinerated, Kiselyov has taken Putin’s campaign against gay rights and transformed it into a weapon against European integration. Thus when the then German foreign minister, who is gay, visited Kiev in December and met with Vitali Klitschko, the heavyweight champion and opposition politician, Kiselyov dismissed Klitschko as a gay icon. According to the Russian foreign minister, the exploitation of sexual politics is now to be an open weapon in the struggle against the “decadence” of the European Union.

Following the same strategy, Yanukovych’s government claimed, entirely falsely, that the price of closer relations with the European Union was the recognition of gay marriage in Ukraine. Kiselyov is quite open about the Russian media strategy toward the Maidan: to “apply the correct political technology,” then “bring it to the point of overheating” and bring to bear “the magnifying glass of TV and the Internet.”

Why exactly do people with such views think they can call other people fascists? And why does anyone on the Western left take them seriously? One line of reasoning seems to run like this: the Russians won World War II, and therefore can be trusted to spot Nazis. Much is wrong with this. World War II on the eastern front was fought chiefly in what was then Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Belarus, not in Soviet Russia. Five percent of Russia was occupied by the Germans; all of Ukraine was occupied by the Germans. Apart from the Jews, whose suffering was by far the worst, the main victims of Nazi policies were not Russians but Ukrainians and Belarusians. There was no Russian army fighting in World War II, but rather a Soviet Red Army. Its soldiers were disproportionately Ukrainian, since it took so many losses in Ukraine and recruited from the local population. The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front.

The other source of purported Eurasian moral legitimacy seems to be this: since the representatives of the Putin regime only very selectively distanced themselves from Stalinism, they are therefore reliable inheritors of Soviet history, and should be seen as the automatic opposite of Nazis, and therefore to be trusted to oppose the far right.

Again, much is wrong about this. World War II began with an alliance between Hitler and Stalin in 1939. It ended with the Soviet Union expelling surviving Jews across its own border into Poland. After the founding of the State of Israel, Stalin began associating Soviet Jews with a world capitalist conspiracy, and undertook a campaign of arrests, deportations, and murders of leading Jewish writers. When he died in 1953 he was preparing a larger campaign against Jews.

After Stalin’s death communism took on a more and more ethnic coloration, with people who wished to revive its glories claiming that its problem was that it had been spoiled by Jews. The ethnic purification of the communist legacy is precisely the logic of National Bolshevism, which is the foundational ideology of Eurasianism today. Putin himself is an admirer of the philosopher Ivan Ilin, who wanted Russia to be a nationalist dictatorship.

What does it mean when the wolf cries wolf? Most obviously, propagandists in Moscow and Kiev take us for fools—which by many indications is quite justified.

More subtly, what this campaign does is attempt to reduce the social tensions in a complex country to a battle of symbols about the past. Ukraine is not a theater for the historical propaganda of others or a puzzle from which pieces can be removed. It is a major European country whose citizens have important cultural and economic ties with both the European Union and Russia. To set its own course, Ukraine needs normal public debate, the restoration of parliamentary democracy, and workable relations with all of its neighbors. Ukraine is full of sophisticated and ambitious people. If people in the West become caught up in the question of whether they are largely Nazis or not, then they may miss the central issues in the present crisis.

In fact, Ukrainians are in a struggle against both the concentration of wealth and the concentration of armed force in the hands of Viktor Yanukovych and his close allies. The protesters might be seen as setting an example of courage for Americans of both the left and the right. Ukrainians make real sacrifices for the hope of joining the European Union. Might there be something to be learned from that among Euroskeptics in London or elsewhere? This is a dialogue that is not taking place.

The history of the Holocaust is part of our own public discourse, our agora, or maidan. The current Russian attempt to manipulate the memory of the Holocaust is so blatant and cynical that those who are so foolish to fall for it will one day have to ask themselves just how, and in the service of what, they have been taken in. If fascists take over the mantle of antifascism, the memory of the Holocaust will itself be altered. It will be more difficult in the future to refer to the Holocaust in the service of any good cause, be it the particular one of Jewish history or the general one of human rights.

 —February 19, 2014

Sem comentários: