Connect with us

RSS

Ukraine at War: A Ceasefire Might Be Necessary, But There Won’t Be ‘Peace’

A Russian drone struck the Chabad-run Perlina school in Kyiv, Ukraine, Oct. 30, 2024. Photo: Jewish community JCC in Kyiv, Kyiv municipality, and Yan Dobronosov

In the first decade of independence, Ukraine was quite distinctly divided into a number of regions, which differed greatly from each other in terms of ethno-identification and linguistic composition:

1. Western Ukraine: oblasts that were part of Austria-Hungary before World War I (Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Zakarpattya, and Chernivtsi) and Volyn and Rivne oblasts that were part of Poland in the interwar period. This region of Ukraine was the least Russified and Sovietized. The legacy of the Ukrainian national movement was strong here, including the fresh memory of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (abbreviated UPA) armed struggle against Soviet rule (especially in the first three oblasts, where Greek Catholics rather than Orthodox Christians predominate among the believers);

2. Central Ukraine. This region more or less fits within the boundaries of The Cossack Hetmanate, or Hetmanshchyna, a semi-independent Ukrainian state entity that existed in the 17th-18th centuries (Chernihiv, Poltava, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy and Kirovohrad oblasts). It was characterized by the stable preservation of the Ukrainian language in villages and small towns, with the prevalence of “surzhik” (mixed Ukrainian-Russian idiom) and the local variant of the Russian language in larger cities. The level of national self-consciousness of the local Ukrainian population was quite high, but, unlike in Western Ukraine, the tradition of the Ukrainian national movement was significantly disrupted by the long process of Sovietization and Russification;

3. Southern and Eastern Ukraine: oblasts that were once part of Sloboda Ukraine (Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts) and Novorossiya Governorate (Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts). This region was characterized by a significant presence of ethnically Russian population, total dominance of the Russian language in cities and in some (ethnically predominantly non-Ukrainian) villages, mass transition of the local Ukrainian population to surzhik (in villages) and to the Russian language (in urban areas). The ethnic self-consciousness of a significant part of the local Ukrainian population was severely eroded.

Kyiv, like other large cities in Central Ukraine, was predominantly Russian-speaking. However, a significant part of its population had a high level of political and national consciousness, which brought the capital closer to Western Ukraine and — in combination with significant migration from western oblasts as well as from villages — paved the way for linguistic Ukrainianization.

Crimea was the most Russified region of Ukraine. The Russian language (its status as an official language along with Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar was legally recognized in the region) unambiguously dominated in all spheres, there was no Ukrainian-language education system, and there was only one district of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea — Krasnoperekopsky district — where ethnic Ukrainians were a relative majority.

Outside of Western Ukraine, addressing strangers in Ukrainian by default in both official and everyday communication was not the norm — despite the fact that Ukrainian was proclaimed the only state language. Demands to recognize Russian as a second state language were articulated openly by politicians in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

Russian aggression in 2014 led to a gradual change of this situation. After the full-scale invasion began in 2022, it changed dramatically. I got to visit Ukraine many times after the Russian aggression began in 2014 — I traveled to Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv, Poltava, Kremenchug, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih, Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Uzhgorod, Khust, Mukachevo, as well as Mariupol (occupied by the Russians in 2022) and Bakhmut (now completely destroyed), which are practically on the line of contact. On behalf of the Jewish Agency, I also visited occupied Crimea twice (in Simferopol, Bakhchysarai and Yevpatoria). Shortly after the full-scale invasion began, I traveled to Ukraine and visited the country only a few times thereafter. I also had many conversations with refugees from Ukraine in Moldova, Poland and Hungary. This empirical experience, as well as information from the Ukrainian media, allows me to form my own preliminary impression of the social, ethno-identification and linguistic processes developing in Ukraine itself and among Ukrainian refugees outside of it.

The first thing that immediately catches the eye is the almost universal complete exclusion of the Russian language from all official and semi-official spheres of use. A very significant part of the population has switched or is switching to Ukrainian in informal communication. At the same time, under stress or in situations of trustful communication, people accustomed to conversing in Russian often involuntarily resort to the Russian language. Undoubtedly, Ukrainian society as a whole is strategically aimed at maximizing its distance from Russia and Russians, including both in language and culture, as well as at the complete switching of the younger generations to the Ukrainian language, which is facilitated by the elimination of Russian-language schools and classes.

The rapid growth of settlements in Western Ukraine due to the arrival of numerous migrants from the east, from areas occupied by the Russians or in close proximity to the zone of active hostilities, is noteworthy. Some of these predominantly Russian-speaking migrants, having found themselves in places with total predominance of the Ukrainian language, feel insecure about their Ukrainian language competence, fearing that their Ukrainian speech will be perceived by the locals as a ridiculous and uneducated surzhik. In this regard, I have seen announcements in some stores and cafes in Lviv that read something like “Russian speakers, you are not ridiculous. You are encouraged to speak Ukrainian.” Migrants from the East settle not only in large urban centers, but also in villages.

I happened to visit many villages in Transcarpathia and in the Hungarian villages adjacent to the border. It is striking that while in the villages on the Hungarian side of the border there are abandoned houses (because young people often leave the villages and move to the cities), there is nothing like that on the Ukrainian side of the border. The locals explain this by the fact that migrants from the east buy or rent almost all available housing in the west of Ukraine. It goes without saying that the closer to the border with EU countries, the safer it is, as there is little chance of Russian missile attacks.

For almost three years of full-scale war, Ukrainian society has adapted to quasi-normal functioning in the environment where mortal danger exists not only on the line of contact, but also in the rear. It is important to emphasize that quasi-normal life continues not only in the west of the country, but also in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia and Kryvyi Rih, which are dozens of kilometers away from the front line and are exposed almost daily to rocket fire and drone attacks. At the same time, the war fatigue and lack of prospects accumulated in society are becoming evident. There is a feeling that Western allies are not letting Ukraine win, combined with the realization that without their help it is impossible to continue active and quite successful resistance to Russian aggression. We should not forget that Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian military are suffering from a growing PTSD, which will inevitably manifest itself in the future, when the active phase of the conflict is over.

Apart from the horrors of war, a powerful factor traumatizing the public consciousness is the feeling of injustice regarding the distribution of the war burden within Ukrainian society itself. In this regard, Ukrainians often refer to the Russian saying meaning “war to some is boon to others.” While some Ukrainians have been fighting at the front for the third year already, others are quietly living abroad, evading conscription in Ukraine or doing their army service far from the front. The lack of proper rotation at the front, associated with the actual failure of mobilization efforts, is the direct cause of this situation. At the same time, the notorious TCCs (Territorial Centers of Recruitment and Social Support) often simply detain men in public places and send them to the army, including the elderly and sick. I can confirm this by personal experience. TCC representatives stopped me twice and sought to verify whether I am really over 60 years old (because I apparently look too young) and whether I really do not have Ukrainian citizenship (apparently, I speak Ukrainian too well). Against this background, Ukrainian government officials of different levels, as well as other influential individuals and their family members have reservations from mobilization.

Moreover, many of them, according to a significant part of the population, earn money from the war through various corruption schemes. The impossibility of organizing anti-government protests (“Maidan”) and holding elections during the war reinforces the feeling of hopelessness. In this context, there is a sad joke that goes like this: “There is only one way to defeat corruption in Ukraine: shoot all the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, then shoot all those who will come to their funerals, and only then hold elections.”

As a result of the full-scale Russian invasion, millions of Ukrainians became refugees abroad, causing the largest migration crisis in Europe since World War II. It should be noted that at the first stage, the Ukrainian authorities themselves de facto called on those unfit for active service from the most threatened areas to temporarily leave the country in order to save their lives and reduce the burden on the Ukrainian economy. During the chaos of the first weeks of the full-scale invasion, a significant number of men of conscription age (up to 60 years old) also left Ukraine. Some of them were able to do so by taking advantage of the corruption in the Ukrainian border services. The presence of Ukrainian refugees in Poland is particularly noticeable.

It is not uncommon to see Ukrainian inscriptions in the Polish capital. For example, ATMs offer Ukrainian as one of the options along with Polish and English. Ukrainian, surzhik and Ukrainian variant of Russian can be heard in Warsaw and beyond very often. It is very obvious that a significant part of the technical staff in hotels, small stores, etc., are Ukrainians. Many of them, despite the patriotic feelings they demonstrate, do not intend to return to Ukraine in the foreseeable future — or ever.

At the same time, there is a kind of “shuttle migration” between Poland and Ukraine, when women living in Poland visit their husbands who remain in Ukraine, because they are in the army or simply cannot leave the country because they have not reached the age of 60. This situation, being indefinitely stretched in time, naturally creates a lot of problems for maintaining normal family relations. It is obvious that Ukraine’s irreversible demographic losses as a result of emigration due to the war will be even higher than those resulting from combat losses and civilian casualties caused by Russian shelling and bombing. This subject is widely discussed in Ukrainian society, and the authorities are making some, so far not very successful, efforts to return at least some of the refugees from abroad.

In this grim situation, many Ukrainians, primarily those who can be regarded as the intellectual elite and expert community, see the Jewish State as a successful model of survival and development in extreme conditions. They see Israel as a model of a small, dynamically developing state that has successfully resisted external aggression from an uncompromising enemy, many times superior in human and material resources, which denies the right of this state to exist and whose goal is to destroy it completely. There are strong sympathies for Israel among ordinary Ukrainian citizens as well, as I have witnessed more than once in the course of direct communication with them in various situations. This is facilitated, in particular, by Israel’s war against Iran, which is the closest ally of Russia. To Ukrainians, Jews are not some “exotic people” but “neighbors”. There are many natives of Ukraine in Israel, and natives of Ukraine played a decisive role in the establishment of the Jewish state. In addition, many Ukrainians are personally acquainted with Jews now living in Israel. All this allows them to perceive the Israeli model as partly “their own” and as fundamentally implementable in Ukrainian conditions.

To summarize, I can say that the majority of Ukrainian society and its elites have come to terms with the idea that the liberation of the Russian-occupied territories is impossible in the foreseeable future. In this regard, against the background of accumulated fatigue, it needs a respite, which can be provided by a ceasefire agreement along the existing lines of contact. At the same time, there is no question of an official renunciation of the territories seized by Russian troops or any normalization of relations between Ukraine and Russia. Ukrainian society is mostly convinced that Russia is an immanent enemy of Ukraine, so the resumption of active armed confrontation is inevitable.

The author is a contributor to the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, where a version of this article was originally published.

The post Ukraine at War: A Ceasefire Might Be Necessary, But There Won’t Be ‘Peace’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll

Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.

Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).

“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”

Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.

“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”

She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”

The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.

According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”

On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.

The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.

Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.

“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.

Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.

“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.

The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.

“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”

Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.

Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.

While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.

This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.

“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.

“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”

Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.

In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.

Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.

However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.

Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”

The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide

Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.

Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”

WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.

The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.

“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.

“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”

Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.

“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”

In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.

In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.

The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.

“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”

In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”

The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News