RSS
Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Thrive in Russia; Is Putin on a Collision Course with Israel?
During a speech in 2022 celebrating the annexation of four new Ukrainian territories (in addition to Crimea, which was annexed in 2014), Russian President Putin unexpectedly articulated a new ideology of Russian anti-colonialism, surprising many Western observers.
Putin synthesized a new “conservative” Kremlin ideology with a formally “leftist” Soviet ideology. What could this ideology practically mean for Israel?
Putin stated: “The West is willing to do anything to preserve the neocolonial system that allows it to parasitize, to actually plunder the world through the power of the dollar and technological diktat, to collect real tribute from humanity, to extract the main source of unearned prosperity, the hegemon’s rent.” Putin accused the West of preparing aggression against Russia through Ukraine, in order to maintain its global domination and colonial enslavement. Interestingly, Putin presented his own aggression and annexation of foreign territories as self-defense, ostensibly aimed at dismantling Western imperialism and liberating the Global South.
Naturally, for any unbiased observer, such a peculiar ideology of “anti-colonialism” contains an obvious contradiction: the liberation of nations from imperialism is clearly impossible through attempts to build an empire. However, the experts who underestimated the potential impact of Putin’s new ideology of “anti-colonialism” because of its inherent contradictions were mistaken.
Putin is trying to capitalize on the fact that the war in Ukraine has not been condemned in many non-Western countries. As Peter Rutland wrote: “The war unified the West — but has divided the West from the rest of the world. The majority of the countries in the Global South see the Ukraine war as a problem in that it has caused energy and food prices to rise, but they are not blaming Russia for starting the war, and have declined to join the Western sanctions. This recalls the Cold War — during which most of the developing world adopted a non-aligned stance, preferring to stay out of the contest between the superpowers.” The unexpected appeal of the Russian position for a number of Third World countries is also noted in a report by the Swedish Defence Research Agency.
To support this new doctrine, a powerful media network (including the popular RT TV channel and Sputnik system in many parts of the world, as well as a network of social media accounts) was deployed. In shaping this new doctrine, Russia managed to partially (although not without internal contradictions) overcome its dependence on the conservative and even explicitly racist discourse of Putin’s propaganda, which is widespread in Russia itself.
Putin’s “anti-colonialism” ideology continues to evolve. It looks more like a state-sponsored process than a full-fledged Soviet-type ideology (e.g., as it appeared under Mikhail Suslov, who oversaw Soviet ideology from Stalin to the end of the Brezhnev era). Based on pragmatic considerations, the Russian elite has decided to emphasize the image of Russia as a global “leader of oppressed countries,” just as the USSR did.
According to a leak, the new propaganda aimts to focus on some of the less wealthy European countries (including Southern Europe, parts of Eastern and Southeastern Europe), post-Soviet countries, South America, and Asia. However, this propaganda is not limited to these parts of the world.
For Israel, the political implications of promoting such an ideology are quite clear.
The Russian leadership appeals to Soviet anti-Zionist (and implicitly antisemitic) ideology, which in itself would have negative consequences for relations with Israel, even if this process remained purely ideological and did not manifest itself in practical life.
In practice, however, Russia is trying to use the new anti-colonial and anti-Israel ideology to build relations with non-Western countries, countering Western attempts to create a global alliance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine
In this context, it is particularly dangerous for Israel that Russia actively employs anti-colonial (and anti-Zionist) ideology in its diplomatic engagement with Iran.
The surge of leftist anti-Israel sentiment in Western intellectual circles demonstrates that the Kremlin’s appeal to Soviet anti-colonial propaganda is helping to destabilize the modern West to some extent.
Anti-Zionist propaganda in Russia itself (and among far-right groups in the West) appeals to far-right groups whose significance to the Kremlin has increased due to ideological confrontation with the liberal world order.
Let’s examine the points highlighted above.
Appeal to Soviet Anti-Zionist Ideology in the Global South. Putin’s Russia seeks to capitalize on the ideological legacy of the Soviet Union in non-Western countries. The Soviet Union was renowned for its uncompromising anti-colonial struggle against Western colonial empires (although its own policies, for example, in Central Asia or the Caucasus, can be characterized as colonial, and such practices continue to this day).At least since the time of Khrushchev, if not the late Stalin, Soviet anti-colonial struggle has included significant elements of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Soviet policy in the Arab Middle East during certain periods was largely confined to supporting Israel’s opponents, including the governments of Egypt under Gamal Nasser, Syria under Hafez al-Assad, and various Palestinian terrorist groups.The Soviet struggle against Israel and Zionism, however, was much broader. It included active anti-Zionist propaganda spread in Third World countries, drawing direct parallels between Zionism and imperialism (and even Nazism as the most extreme form of imperialism). The regions of most uncompromising Soviet anti-colonial struggle included the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and others. In virtually all of these regions, the Soviet Union actively used anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda.
Establishing Relations with Non-Western Countries through a New Anti-Colonial and Anti-Israeli Ideology. The Kremlin is using a new anti-colonial and anti-Israeli ideology to build relations with non-Western countries, countering Western attempts to create a global alliance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Currently, in the context of the war in Gaza, old leftist forces historically linked to the Soviet Union and actively opposing Israel’s policies have re-emerged in these regions.In Latin America, most of the countries most actively opposed to Israel (primarily Bolivia, but also Chile, Colombia, Honduras, and Belize) have leftist governments that to varying degrees associate themselves with Soviet anti-colonial ideology. However, it should be noted that other factors also influence foreign policy decisions. Some leftist governments in the region have been relatively cautious in their statements. Such additional factors include national interests, diplomatic traditions (e.g., Belize tends to take a position opposite to Guatemala, which has expressed pro-Israel sentiments), or the presence of large Arab diasporas (e.g., Chile, which has a half-million Arab minority).The African National Congress in South Africa, which has a strong anti-Israeli stance, has also historically been linked (through its militant left wing) to the USSR. The Syrian regime in the Middle East, which opposes Israel, is directly linked to Soviet times: the Assad dynasty had ties to the USSR. This list could go on for a long time.
Numerous statements by Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Maria Zakharova (spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) contain elements of anti-Israel discourse and antisemitic global conspiracy theory.
For instance, Putin repeatedly stated that Volodymyr Zelensky, who he said was “installed by Western curators,” was covering for “Ukrainian Nazis” with whom Russia is at war. Lavrov added to this by suggesting that “Hitler was allegedly of Jewish descent.” Zakharova published an article justifying a position that some experts (especially in Ukraine and Israel) consider to be a soft version of the Holocaust denial prevalent in the USSR.
In this regard, there is currently an active discussion (in Russia, Ukraine, and Israel) about whether a Soviet style policy of state antisemitism is being revived in Russia. At that time, propaganda equating Zionism with Western imperialism and even German Nazism was widespread]. This idea was utilized both domestically and in specific Soviet propaganda aimed at Arab countries in the Middle East.
Russia also actively supports anti-Israel forces in the Gaza war, including various Palestinian groups, Iran and Hezbollah.
New Anti-Colonial Ideology in Diplomatic Interactions with Iran. Russia is actively using its new anti-colonial ideology in diplomatic engagement with Iran. Iran’s “axis of resistance” ideology, although adapted to a Shiite framework, is very reminiscent of Soviet anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist propaganda and often incorporates elements of the Soviet system (e.g., Assad’s Syria). I analyzed publications on the website of the Russian embassy in Iran and the Iran-related section of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website. A significant part of the publications from 2022-2024 contains elements of anti-colonial rhetoric. This rhetoric has become a mandatory component of diplomatic documents signed in recent years by Russian and Iranian representatives.
Of course, it cannot be said that anti-colonial ideology and even anti-Israel stance were the main reasons for the rapprochement between Russia and Iran. It was more a coincidence of situational factors. From Moscow’s perspective, the key reason for rapprochement was that Iran, against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s international isolation, became an important source of technology (primarily in the production of drones), a political ally in the fight against the West, and an example of long-term economic survival under Western sanctions. Finally, the Iran-Israel conflict was very convenient for Russia to distract the US leadership from the Ukraine problem. Nevertheless, the new anti-colonial rhetoric ideologically reinforces the Russia-Iran rapprochement.
The Explosion of Leftist Anti-Israeli Sentiment in Western Intellectual Circles, Especially in Universities, in the US, and Moscow’s Influence. Putin’s Russia is largely not directly connected to the ultra-leftist circles in the US. Instead, Moscow interacts with right-wing circles in the US that support Trump. The ties of some left-wing parties, such as Germany’s Die Linke, to Russia are more characteristic of Europe.
Nonetheless, Russia has contributed to anti-imperialist and anti-Israeli propaganda in the .S. Notably, Moscow’s ideology is most actively promoted in English-speaking countries through the RT network. RT head Margarita Simonyan largely anticipated Putin’s turn to anti-colonial rhetoric and has sought to recruit journalists with leftist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial views in several countries, including the United States.
In addition, RT is connected to a large group of social media accounts actively spreading anti-Israeli propaganda in the context of the war in Gaza. Thus, the Kremlin is also contributing to the West’s division along this line.
Anti-Zionist propaganda in Russia itself, as well as among far-right groups in the West, appeals to ultra-right antisemitic groups. One of the paradoxes of the new doctrine is that it utilizes propaganda aimed at both far-right and far-left circles. The involvement of prominent right-wing ideologue Alexander Dugin in the formation of the new “anti-colonial” discourse indicates a certain continuity in shaping the right-wing propaganda (directed primarily at wealthy European countries and the US) with the new formally left-wing “anti-colonial” propaganda (directed mainly at the Global South).Dugin, in his various works (for example, on the well-known ideologue of the Third Reich, Carl Schmitt), has demonstrated how elements of Nazi ideology can be introduced into a formally leftist discourse (for example, referring to Carl Schmitt’s theory of the partisan, which in the perception of a number of Russian far-right circles acquires distinct imperial and even antisemitic connotations).
Among other far-right figures involved in the anti-colonial discourse, Konstantin Malofeev, a well-known oligarch, stands out. He played a significant role in the annexation of Crimea and in the outbreak of the war in Donbass, and was a source of funding for Igor Strelkov, the former “defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic.” Malofeev’s propagandist TV channel Tsargrad was initially modeled on American ultra-conservative propaganda. Now Malofeev finances the Tsargrad Institute, intellectually controlled by Dugin. Thus, there is an attempt to appropriate the anti-colonial discourse by Russian far-right circles. There is also a clear misuse of elements of anti-colonial discourse for Russian propaganda in developed Western countries, especially in Europe.
Dugin and Malofeev are known for their numerous antisemitic and anti-Israeli statements, which they now disguise as anti-colonial ideology. This approach is well-received by far-right antisemitic circles in Europe. Unlike the United States, Europe has very influential far-right groups with anti-Israeli and antisemitic positions. Russia’s traditional ties with some far-right parties in Europe fit well with this abusive strand of anti-colonial discourse, transforming it from left-wing to right-wing. Despite the internal contradictions in Dugin’s theses related to right-wing misuse of left-wing theories, they are fully in line with the Kremlin’s propaganda directives in Europe, where the emphasis of “anti-colonialism” should be on supporting traditional, “normal” values.
In addition, “duginism” becomes a means of reinterpreting the anti-colonial foreign policy discourse for the needs of domestic propaganda in Russia. As part of the transition to the “anti-colonial” discourse, a total mobilization of intellectual forces is planned, which involves purging the country of liberals who have not yet left. This ideology also includes a significant share of anti-Semitism. The ideologues of this process also include Dugin and Malofeev, who have proclaimed ideas of “decolonization” of Russian science.
An analysis of the anti-Israeli elements in Putin’s new ideology of “anti-colonialism” shows that as this ideology takes hold, Russia may find itself in a situation of systematic ideologically motivated confrontation with Israel, similar to what took place during the Soviet era. This ideology is currently evolving under the influence of various situational factors related to an attempt to overcome the international isolation of Putin following the invasion of Ukraine. However, this does not mean that it will quickly disappear. After all, anti-Israeli ideology in the USSR also developed under the influence of various situational factors, but lasted for decades during the Cold War.
The author is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the PSCR Program, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, PhD (Israel). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Thrive in Russia; Is Putin on a Collision Course with Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7
The garden of Temple Sholom Synagogue in Vancouver is a serene and contemplative place to remember the horrific events of Oct. 7, 2023—and the Israeli civilians, soldiers and foreign nationals who […]
The post Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7 appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank
The terms of the newly minted ceasefire agreement to halt fighting between Israel and Hezbollah amounts to a defeat for the Lebanese terrorist group, although the deal may be difficult to implement, according to two leading US think tanks.
The deal requires Israeli forces to gradually withdraw from southern Lebanon, where they have been operating since early October, over the next 60 days. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army will enter these areas and ensure that Hezbollah retreats north of the Litani River, located some 18 miles north of the border with Israel. The United States and France, who brokered the agreement, will oversee compliance with its terms.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the implications of the deal on Tuesday in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.” Hezbollah, which wields significant political and military influence across Lebanon, is the chief proxy force of the Iranian regime.
In its analysis, ISW and CTP explained that the deal amounts to a Hezbollah defeat for two main reasons.
First, “Hezbollah has abandoned several previously-held ceasefire negotiation positions, reflecting the degree to which IDF [Israel Defense Forces] military operations have forced Hezbollah to abandon its war aims.”
Specifically, Hezbollah agreeing to a deal was previously contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza, but that changed after the past two months of Israeli military operations, during which the IDF has decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and weapons stockpiles through airstrikes while attempting to push the terrorist army away from its border with a ground offensive.
Additionally, the think tanks noted, “current Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem has also previously expressed opposition to any stipulations giving Israel freedom of action inside Lebanon,” but the deal reportedly allows Israel an ability to respond to Hezbollah if it violates the deal.
Second, the think tanks argued that the agreement was a defeat for Hezbollah because it allowed Israel to achieve its war aim of making it safe for its citizens to return to their homes in northern Israel.
“IDF operations in Lebanese border towns have eliminated the threat of an Oct. 7-style offensive attack by Hezbollah into northern Israel, and the Israeli air campaign has killed many commanders and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s munition stockpiles,” according to ISW and CTP.
Some 70,000 Israelis living in northern Israel have been forced to flee their homes over the past 14 months, amid unrelenting barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah began its attacks last Oct. 8, one day after the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The Jewish state had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but intensified its military response over the past two months.
Northern Israelis told The Algemeiner this week that they were concerned the new ceasefire deal could open the door to future Hezbollah attacks, but at the same time the ceasefire will allow many of them the first opportunity to return home in a year.
ISW and CTP also noted in their analysis that Israel’s military operations have devastated Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. According to estimates, at least 1,730 Hezbollah terrorists and upwards of 4,000 have been killed over the past year of fighting.
While the deal suggested a defeat of sorts for Hezbollah and the effectiveness of Israel’s military operations, ISW and CTP also argued that several aspects of the ceasefire will be difficult to implement.
“The decision to rely on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UN observers in Lebanon to respectively secure southern Lebanon and monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement makes no serious changes to the same system outlined by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war,” they wrote.
Resolution 1701 called for the complete demilitarization of Hezbollah south of the Litani River and prohibited the presence of armed groups in Lebanon except for the official Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
This may be an issue because “neither the LAF nor the UN proved willing or able to prevent Hezbollah from reoccupying southern Lebanon and building new infrastructure. Some LAF sources, for example, have expressed a lack of will to enforce this ceasefire because they believe that any fighting with Hezbollah would risk triggering ‘civil war,’” the think tanks assessed.
Nevertheless, the LAF is going to deploy 5,000 troops to the country’s south in order to assume control of their own territory from Hezbollah.
However, the think tanks added, “LAF units have been in southern Lebanon since 2006, but have failed to prevent Hezbollah from using the area to attack Israel.”
The post Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future
Here’s a fact from history you may not know. In 1667, the Dutch and the British struck a trade deal that, in retrospect, seems so bizarre that it defies belief.
As part of the Treaty of Breda — a pact that ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and aimed to solidify territorial claims between the two powers — the Dutch ceded control of Manhattan to the British.
Yes, that Manhattan — the self-proclaimed center of the universe (at least according to New Yorkers), home to Wall Street, Times Square, and those famously overpriced bagels.
And what did the Dutch get in return? Another island — tiny Run, part of the Banda Islands in Indonesia.
To put things in perspective, Run is minuscule compared to Manhattan — barely 3 square kilometers, or roughly half the size of Central Park. Today, it’s a forgotten dot on the map, with a population of less than 2,000 people and no significant industry beyond subsistence farming. But in the 17th century, Run was a prized gem worth its weight in gold — or rather, nutmeg gold.
Nutmeg was the Bitcoin of its day, an exotic spice that Europeans coveted so desperately they were willing to risk life and limb. Just by way of example, during the early spice wars, the Dutch massacred and enslaved the native Bandanese people to seize control of the lucrative nutmeg trade.
From our modern perspective, the deal seems ridiculous — Manhattan for a pinch of nutmeg? But in the context of the 17th century, it made perfect sense. Nutmeg was the crown jewel of global trade, and controlling its supply meant immense wealth and influence. For the Dutch, securing Run was a strategic move, giving them dominance in the spice trade, and, let’s be honest, plenty of bragging rights at fancy Dutch banquets.
But history has a funny way of reshaping perspectives. What seemed like a brilliant play in its time now looks like a colossal miscalculation — and the annals of history are filled with similar trades that, in hindsight, make us scratch our heads and wonder, what were they thinking?
Another contender for history’s Hall of Fame in ludicrous trades is the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was strapped for cash and eager to fund his military campaigns, sold a vast swath of North America to the nascent United States for a mere $15 million. The sale included 828,000 square miles — that’s about four cents an acre — that would become 15 states, including the fertile Midwest and the resource-rich Rocky Mountains.
But to Napoleon, this was a strategic no-brainer. He even called the sale “a magnificent bargain,” boasting that it would “forever disarm” Britain by strengthening its rival across the Atlantic. At the time, the Louisiana Territory was seen as a vast, undeveloped expanse that was difficult to govern and defend. Napoleon viewed it as a logistical burden, especially with the looming threat of British naval power. By selling the territory, he aimed to bolster France’s finances and focus on European conflicts.
Napoleon wasn’t shy about mocking his enemies for their mistakes, once quipping, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” But in this case, it’s tempting to imagine him swallowing those words as the United States grew into a global superpower thanks, in no small part, to his so-called bargain.
While he may have considered Louisiana to be a logistical headache — too far away and too vulnerable to British attacks — the long-term implications of the deal were staggering. What Napoleon dismissed as a far-off backwater turned out to be the world’s breadbasket, not to mention the backbone of America’s westward expansion.
Like the Dutch and their nutmeg gamble, Napoleon made a trade that no doubt seemed brilliant at the time — but, with hindsight, turned into a world-class blunder. It’s the kind of decision that reminds us just how hard it is to see past the urgency of the moment and anticipate the full scope of consequences.
Which brings me to Esav. You’d think Esav, the firstborn son of Yitzchak and Rivka, would have his priorities straight. He was the guy — heir to a distinguished dynasty that stretched back to his grandfather Abraham, who single-handedly changed the course of human history.
But one fateful day, as recalled at the beginning of Parshat Toldot, Esav stumbles home from a hunting trip, exhausted and ravenous. The aroma of Yaakov’s lentil stew hits him like a truck. “Pour me some of that red stuff!” he demands, as if he’s never seen food before.
Yaakov, never one to pass up an opportunity, doesn’t miss a beat.
“Sure, but only in exchange for your birthright,” he counters casually, as if such transactions are as common as trading baseball cards. And just like that, Esav trades his birthright for a bowl of soup. No lawyers, no witnesses, not even a handshake — just an impulsive decision fueled by hunger and a staggering lack of foresight.
The Torah captures the absurdity of the moment: Esav claims to be “on the verge of death” and dismisses the birthright as worthless. Any future value — material or spiritual — is meaningless to him in that moment. All that matters is satisfying his immediate needs.
So, was it really such a terrible deal? Psychologists have a term for Esav’s behavior: hyperbolic discounting — a fancy term for our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over bigger, long-term benefits.
It’s the same mental quirk that makes splurging on a gadget feel better than saving for retirement, or binge-watching a series more appealing than preparing for an exam. For Esav, the stew wasn’t just a meal — it was the instant solution to his discomfort, a quick fix that blinded him to the larger, long-term value of his birthright.
It’s the classic trade-off between now and later: the craving for immediate gratification often comes at the expense of something far more significant. Esav’s impulsive decision wasn’t just about hunger — it was about losing sight of the future in the heat of the moment.
Truthfully, it’s easy to criticize Esav for his shortsightedness, but how often do we fall into the same trap? We skip meaningful opportunities because they feel inconvenient or uncomfortable in the moment, opting for the metaphorical lentil stew instead of holding out for the birthright.
But the Torah doesn’t include this story just to make Esav look bad. It’s there to highlight the contrast between Esav and Yaakov — the choices that define them and, by extension, us.
Esav represents the immediate, the expedient, the here-and-now. Yaakov, our spiritual forebear, is the embodiment of foresight and patience. He sees the long game and keeps his eye on what truly matters: Abraham and Yitzchak’s legacy and the Jewish people’s spiritual destiny.
The message of Toldot is clear: the choices we make in moments of weakness have the power to shape our future — and the future of all who come after us. Esav’s impulsiveness relegated him to a footnote in history, like the nutmeg island of Run or France’s control over a vast portion of North America.
Meanwhile, Yaakov’s ability to think beyond the moment secured him a legacy that continues to inspire and guide us to this day — a timeless reminder that true greatness is not built in a moment of indulgence, but in the patience to see beyond it.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login