Two More Eastern European Israeli Billionaires: Mashkevich and Rabinovich.02.05.13

Two More Eastern European Israeli Billionaires: Mashkevich and Rabinovich 02.05.13

by

Howard Adelman

Lev Leviev originally came from Uzbekistan. Alexander Mashkevich was born in Kyrgyzstan, lived in Kazakhstan and still commutes between there and Israel where he moved and took out citizenship in 1991. He also has homes in Belgium and London where his family reside. Unlike Leviev, who was a school dropout, Mashkevich began as an academic teaching philology and became Dean of the Faculty of Linguistics at the University of Kyrgyzstan. Further, Mashkevitch has never invested in the Israeli economy except to buy a 10,000 sq. ft. condo for his daughter for $US31 million.

With two other partners, Muslims from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, he entered into the good graces of the President of Kazakhstan, Nur Sultan Nezdabayev. When the USSR imploded, the three obtained control initially of aluminum through Khazakhstan Aluminum and, subsequently, the chromium and gas operations in Khazakistan through the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC). When ENRC went public at the end of 2007 when the economy had already begun to dip, it was floated on the London stock exchange for over US$10 billion to the benefit mostly of the three partners. In 2009, ENRC earned almost US$1.5 billion profit on sales of US$3.8 billion, an unheard of 40% return on sales. ENRC invests in coal and transportation companies from Eastern Europe to Africa.

Patokh Chodiev, one of his partners in ENRC, was, like Leviev, an Uzbek, but, unlike Leviev, a Muslim and a scholar who studied international law and mastered Japanese when he lived in Japan. Chodiev later established the Chodiev Group and last week, through a nephew, Orifjon Chodiev, purchased one of the small commercial banks in Khazakistan, the TAIB Bank. For insurance, Chodiev acquired Belgium citizenship in 1997. The third partner, Alijan Ibrgimov, is a Muslim Uigur born in Kyrgyzstan.

Mashkevich followed the pattern established by Leviev and Nevzlin in becoming a plutocratic leader of the Jews in the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress and supports synagogues, even though, unlike Leviev, he is not deeply religious though he plays the role of an observant Jew. Further, he is a supporter of the Braslev Hasidim rather than the Lubavitchers. In 2011, in the Savarona Affair, he was caught by the Turkish police on a very wealthy yacht with other billionaires, but primarily with another Khazakh, Taufik Arif, who lives in Turkey and also owns a metal production factory in Kazakhstan as well as many properties jointly with Donald Trump. The group has more in common with Berlesconi of Italy and purportedly enjoys the pleasures of under-aged girls. In the Turkish press, Taufik has been accused of making money through trafficking in females from Eastern Europe.

Another Eastern European billionaire, Vadim Rabinovich, plays the same game. He is president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine which he created in 1999. He previously led the All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress which he created in 1997 and dissolved in 1999 because it ostensibly was not willing to bend to his will. He is also Vice President of the European Jewish Union. He made his little fortune in the furniture business and his large fortune in the natural gas business. Like most of the plutocrats, he got in trouble with the law. As with Leonid Nevzlin, that can become a badge of honour. For much of Eastern Europe still has to learn that the rule of law does not mean using the law to rule and throw opponents in jail. However, how do we know when the accused are criminals or political victims?

In yesterday’s National Post, an article on p. A9 was headlined, “Jailing of ex-PM of Ukraine ruled rights violation”. Maria Danilova and Lori Hinnant told the story of how the current president, Viktor Yanukovych, used the judicial system as a club to keep the former president, Yulia Tymoshenko, a heroine of the 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution, in prison. Viktor Yanukovych, like the second president, Leonid Kuchma, advocates closer ties with Russia and was known for closing opposition papers and allegedly even having a journalist, Georgiy Gongadze, killed, the accusation that was the catalyst for the Orange Revolution. He was charged in 25 March 2011 but the case was dismissed in December of that year.

Tymoshenko, however, was sentenced to seven years for “exceeding her powers” and “negotiating a gas contract with Russia”. The European human rights court ruled unanimously that her jailing was politically rather than criminally motivated. Typically, as in the blog narrated yesterday, charges are also pending for embezzlement, tax evasion and murdering a politician and a businessman.

Rabinovich was also convicted of a variety of crimes and stripped of his citizenship for fleeing the country and taking out Israeli citizenship. The conviction was subsequently reversed and his citizenship restored. He had a criminal record from the communist period. In 1980, he was charged with stealing state property and spent nine months in jail. In 1984, he was once again arrested and that time sentenced to fourteen years in prison for black market activities but was released in 1990. He then took advantage of the opening up of the Eastern European economic system to quickly accumulate assets.

Like many other plutocrats, he is known for owning a football club, FC Arsenal Kyiv in Kiev, and for his contributions to Jewish charities. He put up the money for the restoration of the Hurva Synagogue, but when we went there to make a program for our show, “Israel Today,” the Hasidim who were given control of the synagogue would not give us access – even to see it let alone to videotape the restoration. The sign denoting the square outside the synagogue read “Vadim Rabinovich Z”L” (“may his memory be blessed”), a designation not only incorrect, since he was not dead, but completely illegal because Israeli public spaces cannot be named after people who are still alive. Public spaces in the old city must be named after people who died before 1500 AD. Rabinovich also donated a golden menorah ($US3 million) that now overlooks the Western Wall.

Two months ago, on 4 March 2013, a bomb was hurled by young man wearing a baseball cap at his car in Kiev near the Klovska metro station in Kiev but no one was hurt in the explosion. Six weeks earlier, a senior government official and famous Ukrainian businessman with close ties to the present government, Boris Podolsky Evseevich, visited his office and suggested that harm might come his way if he did not transfer his ownership of Jewish News One TV to the government within a week. JN1TV has tried to become the Jewish al Jazeera. In addition, Rabinovich-Katsman own the following newspapers: Stolychka, Stolichnye Novosti, Jewish Review (in Russian), Jewish Reviewer, Vek, Mig, and Zerkalo .

In the Ukraine there has been a noticeable rise in anti-Semitism recently, particularly with the increased representation of the far right Svoboda Party (“Freedom” in Ukrainian) in Parliament as a result of the elections in October 2012 in which they garnered over 10% of the vote. The party was expected to incite new waves of public protest to advance its social and nationalist messages. On 26 April 2013, the JTA reported that, “Marching in formation, six young men in dark jackets approach an anti-government rally in Cherkasy, a city some 125 miles southeast of Kiev. At the appointed moment, they remove their windbreakers to reveal white T-shirts emblazoned with the words ‘Beat the kikes’. Their jackets carry the name of Svoboda, the ultranationalist Ukrainian political party.” One of the men beat Victor Smal, a lawyer and human rights activist, so savagely that he is rendered barely recognizable. A website http://iamthewitness.com/Ukraine.html is headlined, “The French Connection: Who Controls the Ukraine?” and argues that it is the Jews. I quote generously from that site.

“In the early 1990s, backed by the financial power of international Jewish bankers, the vultures bought for pennies, and plainly seized, all major enterprises previously owned by the state, including the biggest factories and entire sectors of the newly ‘privatized’ national economy.” Four Jewish media moguls were then named and their pictures put up on the site: Gregory Surkis, Victor Medvedchuk, Vadim Rabinovich and Victor Pinchuk.

They do own many of the TV stations and newspapers in the Ukraine even though Jews constitute only .2% (103,000) of the Ukrainian population of 48 million. What is not stated is that Leonid Kuchma two term presidency was brought down largely because of that same media exposures of widespread corruption under his government.

Professor Vasyl Yaremenko, director of the Institute of Culturological and Ethnopolitical research at Kiev State University, wrote, “Ukrainians need to know that the mass media is completely in the hands of Jews, and everything that we watch or read is the product of Jewish ideology…” The site states that Leonid Kuchma, the second president of the Ukraine from 1994 to 2005 was put in office by the Jew, George Soros. The Jewish Ukrainian billionaire, Victor Pinchuk, who owns oil, gas and energy import/export companies, the nation’s largest steel mill and a chain of banks, is his son-of-law.

“Jew Victor Medvedchuk is Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s Chief of Staff. The Medvedchuk-Surkis cabal controls Ukraine’s energy sector (8 regional energy companies), oil and gas market, alcohol and sugar production, shipbuilding, and athletic organizations. He is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, and a leader in the Social Democratic party of Ukraine (SDPU).” “Jew Gregory Surkis is second in command of the SDPU. He owns a soccer team, Dynamo-Kiev, and is a president of the Professional Soccer League. He is CEO of Slavutich, a company that controls several regional energy companies (KirovogradEnergo, PoltavEnergo, etc). He too is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament.” And so it goes, on and on, naming one rich Ukrainian Jew after another.

Even Hollywood enters the fray. Mila Kunis is a Hollywood actress who was born in the Ukraine and migrated to the US when she was seven. The Ukrainian legislature member, Igor Miroshnichenko, called her a “zhydovka” on his Facebook page, a derogatory term used to refer to a Jewess that has not been publicly used since the Nazi era. In the debate in the Ukraine parliament, an anti-hate bill was defeated when only 208 votes were cast for the bill and 226 were needed for it to pass.

Professor Yaremenko claimed that 136 and possibly 158 of the members of the Ukrainian parliamentary members are Jews, more than in the Israeli Knesset. Professor Yaremenko asked: “Who voted for them?” “Who paid for costly election campaigns?” Yaremenko claims that 90% of Ukrainian banks are owned by Jews. The site claims that the infamous Ukrainian famine of 1933 was organized by Jews and that 99% of PCIA members––Stalin’s secret police––were Jewish. The site ends: “We cannot allow Zionists to destroy Ukraine.”

The story ends where is has always begun – Jewish economic, political, academic, professional success is connected with a Jewish cabal and ideology intent on power and control while sucking out the life blood of other nations. Jewish business successes may be the result of varied characters and different means, but it is always connected with a Medici-like hidden hand that wants worldwide control and power.

NEXT WEEK: Machiavelli, The Prince and the Jews

Survival and Slavery: Behar-Bechukotai – Leviticus 25:1-27:34.05.05.13

Survival and Slavery: Behar-Bechukotai – Leviticus 25:1-27:34 05.05.13

by

Howard Adelman

It is Sunday, May 5th. This parsha should have been sent out on Friday, May 3rd. However, Friday was a gorgeous day in Toronto with the sky clear and temperatures in the twenties centigrade. When I failed to complete the blog in the early morning, I was doomed. For after a long winter, there was so much clean up work to do outside. The day was so beautiful, that it was six o’clock and I had not even noticed the time fly. Such are the seductions of sun and sky and warmth, especially after the deprivations of a long and harsh winter. Maybe the experience is relevant to today’s subject matter – giving in to the seductions of slavery to the Ba’al Hadad, the lord or master in heaven who rules over the assembly of all the other natural deities or spirits. Today, Sunday, has been as beautiful a day as Friday and Ba’al no less enticing.

This section of Leviticus that was read yesterday in synagogue is largely about the jubilee year, the second sabbatical year after seven, that is, every 50 years. A number of principles of business ethics are set forth, largely a tribal rather than a universal ethic as when 24:14 advises: “when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another.” It even has a strange formula on the price you should pay for a crop depending on the length of time between jubilee years. “The more [the remaining] years, you shall increase its purchase [price], and the fewer the [remaining] years, you shall decrease its purchase [price], because he is selling you a number of crops.” (24:16) Moral norms and not the invisible hand of the market were major factors in determining prices.

Beyond these admonitions to be fair, never wrong a fellow Jew and consideration for the destitute, what I find most interesting are the commandments concerning slavery in chapter 25. There are four kinds of slaves:
a) Jewish slaves of Jews;
b) Jewish slaves of non-Jews;
c) non-Jewish slaves of Jews;
d) non-Jewish slaves of non-Jews.
There are no prescriptions for the fourth category, reinforcing the principle that these ethical norms are tribal or national rather than universal.

Further, how you handle each of the first three categories reinforces this perspective. Jewish slaves of Jews have to be freed by the Jubilee year – or, according to Deuteronomy, in a sabbatical year. During the period of ownership, Jewish slaves cannot be worked with rigour. (25:46) Thirdly, there is no provision for making the children of Jewish slaves your slaves or bequeathing Jewish slaves as part of your inheritance to your children. In contrast, chapter 25 reads:
44. Your male slave or female slave whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may acquire a male slave or a female slave.
45. And also from the children of the residents that live among you, from them you may acquire [slaves] and from their family that is with you whom they begot in your land, and they shall become your inheritance.
46. You shall hold onto them as an inheritance for your children after you, as acquired property, and may thus have them serve you forever. But as for your brethren, the children of Israel, a man shall not work his brother with rigor.

Jews have a duty to redeem other Jews from slavery to non-Jews. They have no such obligations to non-Jewish slaves of non-Jews. Further, their own non-Jewish slaves are an inheritance for their children. Jewish slaves have to be freed. The children of non-Jewish slaves become your indentured servants. These strictures vary between Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy and are quite different than the provisions of the Talmud which offers universal norms governing the treatment of any slave. But this is not a Talmudic but a Torah commentary, and only very incidentally a comparative Torah study.

How do slaves become slaves? They are captured in war. Or they are indigent and enter into slavery so they will not die. Or they enter into slavery to satisfy a debt. Slavery is a product of economic or physical coercion. Bondage to another is slavery. On the other hand, bondage to the Lord and God of the Israelites is chosen by a free person, by someone who stands upright and was freed by the Lord their God from slavery to a human master in Egypt. But is the contrast between the two forms of bondage so clear?

Certainly, if the Israelites obey God, keep shabat, follow His commandments, do not worship idols and make God a centre of their lives, they will be rewarded with prosperous, secure and healthy lives with productive farms and freed from the scourge of their enemies. But, as chapter 26 makes abundantly clear, if the Israelites fail to let God live in their midst and if they break His commandments, then they will suffer from all manner of physical and psychological diseases, from tuberculosis to depression. Their enemies will smite them, wild animals will attack them, their livestock will die and their land will yield no crops. Buildings will collapse around them, the cities laid waste and the Israelites will be scattered among the nations. They will live in paranoid fear frightened even by the shaking of a leaf. If that were not enough, they will become cannibals and devour their own children.

It is a choice without an option. Israelites can either live as free men with secure and prosperous lives in bondage to their Lord or be destroyed as a nation and as healthy individuals. Slavery to another offers no positive inducements except survival. Bondage to the Lord freely undertaken offers enormous benefits. Not making that choice offers consequences far more dire than simply being enslaved by another human being.

It is important to link the bondage to the Lord in contrast to the bondage to other human beings to make clear that they are both forms of bondage, but with radically different outcomes. Further, the connection is important to discard all the Torah apologetics that, in the desire to portray Judaism as enlightened, want to rationalize slavery either as a concession to surrounding society until the ideal of emancipation could be realized while trying to be humane and limiting its injustices, or as a form of witnessing to a higher standard of ethical practice while engaged in slavery. The rationalizations are just so much hogwash. Jewish provisions for slavery may have been doctrinally much more moderate, but in behavioural terms, the treatment offered was just one variation among a wide spectrum of practices without any evidence that they offered the most enlightened form of servitude. Certainly Jews treated non-Jewish slaves somewhat differently for they were partially converted and, if freed by various routes, they could join the Jewish community as full citizens. Further, slaves could marry their masters. Ancient slavery, whether of Jews or non-Jews, was not based on a somatic racist presumption.

There were, nevertheless, other principles and conceptions that undermined the possibility of manumission than a somatic racist conception. Though Plato also did not have a racist view, and though slavery was a side consideration in his concerns, nevertheless, Plato depicted slavery as an intellectual deficiency. Slaves, in Gregory Vlastos’ depiction of Plato’s views, suffered from a deficiency of logos. A slave could comprehend and understand but only had doxa. Therefore, it was useless to reason with a slave. You merely issued orders and did not “spoil” them by admonitions or explanations. They were to be motivated by rewards and punishments, fair ones in each case, but through external pressures rather the any internal intellectual cultivation or intercourse.

This is not the view in Leviticus. Slaves from the surrounding tribes of Canaanites, even though treated differently than Jewish slaves, were regarded as fully human. They were not defined as inferior forms of being. Their situations, not their character as humans, differed. Aristotle, however he differed with Plato, and however more articulate his view of slaves, had a similar doctrine. In Book I, chapters ii-vii of his Politics and in Book VII of Nichomachean Ethics, slaves are depicted as slaves by nature fit only to be ruled and not rule. As men are to animals, so Greeks are towards Barbarians, those fit to rule and those fit to be ruled. Aristotle offered a more encompassing doctrine of slavery than simply a rule of treatment for those found to be slaves. The natural character of slaves determines their condition and not just their treatment. So obtaining a slave through war or economic destitution of the slave is not what provides any entitlement to own a slave. Rather, the relationship of the master to the slave is blamed on the nature of the slave.

In the second century BC, Cato the Elder offered a manual for how Romans should treat their slaves who probably constituted 30% of the population, a ratio akin to that of the upper south, such as the Virginias and the Carolinas, at the time of the American Civil War. They were to be given adequate provisions and clothing and drink to sustain life but not enough to support a family or to facilitate their reproduction, a situation very different from that described in Leviticus. On the other hand, Seneca, the Stoic, offered a perspective more akin to that of the ancient Israelites but even more “enlightened”. He not only considered slaves and free Romans to be equally human, but entitled to equal treatment. For all men, including Romans, were slaves. In Letter 47 to Lucilius, he wrote: “I am glad to learn…that you live on friendly terms with your slaves. This befits a sensible and well-educated man like yourself. ‘They are slaves,’ people declare. Nay, rather they are men. ‘Slaves!’ No, comrades. ‘Slaves!’ No, they are unpretentious friends. ‘Slaves!’ No, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. (my italics) That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.”
If we compare the position of Jews as slaves in Egypt to the position of Canaanite slaves in the Jewish community to the treatment by Jews of slaves in different parts of the modern world, we will perhaps understand the laws and ethical norms governing the ancient Israelites in a somewhat clearer light. For example, whereas slavery was very marginal to the economic life of American northerners in the nineteenth century who lived in a very racist society, it was not marginal to the Israelites but an integral part of their society.

In the Torah, 600,000 male heads of households purportedly conquered Canaan. For many, that figure seems implausible given that so many died of the plague before reaching the promised land and also contradicts other data, such as the actual census of first born and the number of men fit to do battle – about 40,000 according to Joshua (4:13). According to some commentators, the figure was only 600,000 if you count souls and not living men and include all the ancestors counting back to Abraham. The number of living returnees, including women and children, was likely about 120,000 rather than several million. On the other hand, if 600,000 represents all the living Israelites at the time of Exodus and, approximately the same number when they enter Canaan, then there were about 75,000 who could fight in battle but still not 600,000.

Whatever the absolute number, the Israelites outnumbered each of the Canaanite tribes including the Amorites, Hittites, Girgashites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who, only when allied together, were larger than the numbers of Israelites. (Deuteronomy 7:1) The Israelites were in the same position as the Egyptians at the time of Exodus. Just as the tribes of Israel demographically threatened the Egyptians, the population indigenous to Canaan at the time the Israelites returned to the land threatened the population of Israelites, a situation not too dissimilar to the situation in Israel/Palestine/Jordan today.

If we compare the situation of the ratio of whites to black slaves in the early nineteenth century, the only equivalent to the situation of the Israelites, who can barely hold their own in numbers to the surrounding population, is the situation in the deep southern United States on the eve of the Civil War where the ratio of whites to blacks was about 56% to 44%. In the upper south, Blacks made up about 24% of the population while in the rest of the United States, Blacks were a relatively small minority. In contrast, in most of the Caribbean, Blacks constituted a vast majority. In Brazil, Blacks were a minority and did not threaten the white domination of the country.

Though there was a demographic battle for supremacy after the return of the Israelites to Canaan, akin to the demographic battle in the southern United States, the battle was exacerbated by the strict requirements of what was needed to keep the Israelites versus the southern whites united. In the latter case, it was race and the one drop rule. If you were part Black genetically, you were fully Black socially. The Whites only managed to keep their superior standing by huge efforts of oppression to keep family formation among Blacks very limited. In ancient Israel, the Israelites also cohabited with the local Canaanites and often took Canaanite wives. But the differences were not racial and Canaanites could become Israelites and Israelites intermarried and became Canaanites. Benjamites seemed to be the exception for they were not only the most formidable fighting force among the twelve tribes, but also the most inhospitable and insular tribe wary of intermarriage not only with Canaanites but even with members of the other Hebrew tribes until they were decimated in the civil war against the rest of the Israelites and forced to take non-Israelite wives.

Recall that Judges 3.5-3.7 reads:
5 The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. 6 They took the Canaanites’ daughters as wives and gave their daughters to the Canaanites; they worshiped their gods as well. 7 The Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight. They forgot the Lord their God and worshiped the Baals and the Asherahs.

Integration and assimilation are not values held to be worthy. Quite the reverse, they are the dangers. In modern Israel, the danger of intermarriage with the competing population of Palestinians is minimized by ideological politics and religious affiliation rather than by race. Further, the only demographic group that exceeds the rate of reproduction of the Palestinians is that group which is most inhospitable to integration and intermarriage – the ultra-orthodox.

So if you do not decimate the surrounding population and do not engage in ethnic cleansing, and if you do not choose to oppress them in other ways by limiting their ability to procreate, then that surrounding population will pose a demographic danger, especially if your group is the superior and more powerful group but allows extensive intermarriage, then your inherited group faces an existential danger. The standard laws of sociological behaviour will come into play as outward intermarriage by the downwardly mobile will exceed in-migration by the upwardly mobile. More and more members of your group will either adhere to the cultural practices of the competing group or, at the very least, lose the strength of the adherence to their own precepts which provided unity and strength for the dominant group. It is the law of revenge of the bondsmen against their masters. The more you succeed in mastering the norms of the dominant culture, the more you endanger the particularist norms of your sub-culture.

What are the choices? You can try to remain insular and ill-disposed to even co-habiting with those less rigid in their methods of group survival. You can focus on both reproduction and physical strength, which is what the orthodox in Israel have done and what the Haredim are about to do now that they will be forced to serve in both the army and the economic work force. They will surrender to the force of numbers but through numbers and strict enforcement of group norms, will seek to turn the tables on their in-group masters.

Why will the secular and modern lose out? After all, with their military prowess and with the amazing reputation as the start-up nation par excellence, Israel is now an economic and technological as well as military powerhouse, even further ahead in the new knowledge economy because of the high proportion of investment in human capital. As a result of the Israeli success combined with the success of those in the diaspora, even Greek socialists now regard Israel as a model according to Anna Diamentopolou, the Greek Minister for Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs.

Nevertheless, these successful secular Israelis and the majority of Jews in the diaspora will lose out, not as individuals, but as a culture and society. Their minority sub-culture will become a minor variation is a spectrum of the modern world. Jews and Israelis will have become a nation like every other nation. When Israel finally makes peace with all their neighbours and are freed of any crushing physical danger, the threat from without will become even stronger because of the attractions of the enlightenment values of the dominant imperial culture and the gradual surrender of the norms that provide their insularity as a group. If they choose to treat those with whom they intermarry in an “enlightened” way, by inviting them in to join the group instead of strict prohibitions against, then, simply statistically, the norms ensuring group coherence and, thereby, survival will grow weaker.

The diaspora has already lost the linguistic mode of group survival with the loss of Yiddish or Ladino and without replacing it with Hebrew as the group’s subculture’s language. Israelis in the next generation will continue to keep Hebrew as the language of their sub-culture and as an in-group language as they increasingly use English as the language of the dominant culture and of the global economy, especially as they pursue success in that dominant culture. Of course, Israel will be led by the educated elites, but also by the street through the message of music which can even penetrate the Satmar sect as the Israeli movie, God’s Neighbours illustrates. Just as the dominant economic market place has an invisible hand, the cunning of reason will operate as a pincer movement from both above and below to threaten group survival and instil a bifurcation of values in both the educated elites and in the street culture of even those who take pride in their survival skills as a tribe.

What are the real choices? If the majority of the elite, first in the diaspora and then in Israel, choose success as the cost of spiritual self-exile and gradual absorption into the dominant imperial high culture, then the sub-culture dies even if it retains a patina of difference. If those groups with the highest rate of reproduction are forced into a world that esteems physical prowess as its culture is subverted through the music of the streets, then the sub-culture will survive but will eventually go to war with the dominant indigenous imperial culture and that civil war will make the war with the Palestinians seem like a piece of cake. For Civil Wars are the most cruel and ruthless.

This jeremiad as humankind is in the process of making its next greatest advance that inherently must entail the rejection of tradition and particularism, and that especially threatens the Jews as a sub-culture who sustained their identity by becoming a community of memory while also mastering the dominant culture, need not take place. But until the Jews in the diaspora and Israelis learn to become one at the same time as they develop a new form of dualism, a schizophrenia that allows them to be both moderns and a community of memory at one and the same time, neither Jews not Israelis will survive as a sub-culture. But whatever the fearsome prognostications facing Israelis, they will survive longer as a substantive sub-culture than the enlightened Jews of the diaspora.