Conference taveng::bagels

    Chris,

    This issue is not as simple as it seems.  Nearly all of the emigrants
    from the USSR have visas for Israel.  When they change destinations
    enroute, they play into the hands of soviet propagandists.  This
    common change of destination has been used to resist giving emigration
    visas for Israel.

    Israel is asking that a system be set up in which the emigrants would
    have to go to their final destinations BY WAY OF ISRAEL.  This would
    allow more time to over come the anti-Israel propaganda that is
    spread in the USSR.  It would also allow these people to see Israel
    first hand.  And possibly the rate of emigration to Israel would be
    thus increased.

    The one objection I have to this approach is that the Israeli
    government might start charging soviet emigrees the exit tax that
    is leveed on Israeli citizens when leaving Israel.

    Gavriel

    re: .1
    
    I agree with what was stated in this reply.
    
    re: .0
    
    I think you're under a misunderstanding of the situation.  The Russian
    emigrants have never been pressured by Israelis in Vienna as you
    have stated.  In fact the opposite is true, the agents of the Sochnut
    (Jewish Agency) were there to assist in travel to Israel, the
    destination country on their visas.  95% of the emigrants rejected
    this and made a beeline straight for the U.S. embassy.
    
    I consider myself a supporter of human rights, but I don't see any
    violation of human rights in this case.  An Israeli visa should
    not be a means to do anything except travel to Israel.  Israel is
    a free country, one can leave if he/she is dissatisfied, example
    myself.  The issue with the Soviet Union should be the right to
    emigrate, period.  Israel has been taken advantage of in this
    situation.  Now I don't want a ton of flames on what I say here.
    This is a sensitive subject for me, and also for Israel.
    
    David 

    re. the last two:
    
    Thank you for your comments, things are getting clearer, now. Having
    re-analyzed my emotions, I think it's the cooperation with Ceausescu
    which I just can't digest. What I heard about him and his family
    from Hungaro-Rumanian emigrees makes Stalin look like a liberal.
    
    I do understand that Israel feels like being exploited. It is
    understandable that the authorities wish to change this status. But if
    this is not possible via another stop in Europe but Rumania, I
    certainly will not like the way how this is approached. (What about New
    Delhi?)
    
    There's another problem: you are right when you say that the Jewish
    emigrees have Israeli visa in their passports. The issue is: it might
    well be that they will either not get another one or not be allowed to
    emigrate if they apply for another one. But who says that their
    preferred final destination really IS Israel? Their priorities might be
    1.) to get out and 2.) maybe go to Israel. Given this, I believe that
    Israel (and the Dutch embassy in Moscow, for that matter) are doing an
    excellent job and fulfill an unmeasurable humanitarian task to help
    achieving 1.), and should be very proud of it. Israel would show real
    greatness if they left 2.) to the individuals. 
    
    Chris

    re: .4
    
    Israel does not maintain diplomatic relations with India, so routing
    through New Delhi would be impossible, and the Indians are much
    more sensitive to their relations to the Arab states.
    
    re: Romania, Ceuacescu, etc.
    
    As I stated in an earlier note in this conference Israel has to
    operate on two levels, one as the Jewish state and all that implies.
    Second, as a sovereign nation in the world community.  It is in
    this second role that relations with Romania falls into.  Romania
    is the only East Bloc state not to have broken diplomatic relations
    with Israel since 1967.  Romania has been Israel's link to the "second
    world", although now both Poland and Hungary have established low-level
    diplomatic delegations with Israel (and Bulgaria might do likewise
    in the near future).
           
    This link to the East Bloc is quite important to Israel which has
    to have contact to the Soviet Union.  Israel certainly has not ruled
    out the Soviet Union as a superpower with influence in the middle
    east.  The link is also important from the perspective of a Jewish
    state because that is one way in which contact can be established
    with the Jewish communities of the East Bloc countries.
    
    I know that Ceaucescu is not someone that you'd want for a favourite
    uncle, but he has been useful in contact with states who do not
    have relations with Israel.  The initial contact with Sadat were
    handled via this channel.
    
    David  
           

    re.-1:
    
    Today, Austria is concerned about the so-called 'economy refugees',
    i.e., foreign citizens applying for political asylum on forebrought
    arguments of political persecution which cannot withstand a question
    and answer session for 5 minutes, whereas they really are concerned
    about their material misery.
    
    Jewish emigrants from Russia do not fall under this category. They
    are by definition considered as 'persecuted group', hence they will
    always get asylum in Austria, and, no, these are not the group of
    people which cause grief.

    Moreover, let me bring back to your memory that Austria has repeatedly
    given free asylum to emigrees of European countries in crisis
    situations. Altogether, the emigrees of Hungaria (56), Czecoslovaqia
    (68) and Poland (81) have added up to a close 1 Million of people. And
    this for a population of, roughly, 7 million of people. Today, many
    of the Polish immigrants of '81 who decided to stay, have the Austrian
    citzenship and/or at least an Austrian working permit.
    
    Summary: Austria never had and is likely to never have a problem with
    the Jewish Russian emigrants. Like it will never have with ANY
    oppressed group in need of immediate help. 
    
    For instance, the US and Canadian immigration regulations are much more
    restrictive than Austria's refugee legislation: to immigrate to the US,
    you have to accumulate some points (speaking english, job expertise,
    et.al.), whereas such a selective regulation is in conflict with the
    Austrian constitution. 
    
    The problem is not Austrian.
    
    Chris
    
    P.S.:	I still don't like a deal with Ceausescu. I'd like to
    		know what the 'head hunter prime' is....

    re.-2 (cont'd):
    
    The Russian emigrants arrive in Austria and say: we changed our mind
    and wish to switch for another country of destination, since this was
    our original goal, but we wouldn't have received visa for these
    countries, directly (or difficultly). What are the Austrian authorities
    supposed to do? Austrian laws prescribe to grant these persons asylum.
    It is contradictory with Human Rights to enforce on them a particular
    route to leave the country. 
    
    The fact that only 127 out of ca. 1800 persons continued their way to
    Israel is a result of these persons free choice, not of any
    legislation. 
    
    Ceausescu wouldn't grant this freedom of choice to any of them.
    
    Maybe the Austria-Canada/US itinerary is more attractive than the
    Austria-Israel itinerary. Israel is doing a major humanitarian act by
    delivering the visa. It would be counterdicting itself if it were to
    insist on all of these people to be forced to come to the country.

    Chris
    

    re .6:
>    Summary: Austria never had and is likely to never have a problem with
>    the Jewish Russian emigrants. Like it will never have with ANY
>    oppressed group in need of immediate help. 
>    For instance, the US and Canadian immigration regulations are much more
>    restrictive than Austria's refugee legislation: to immigrate to the US,
                                                                  
    An "academic" question: would Austria still not have a problem
    if it was bordering Mexico, Jamaica or Afganistan? I am not diminishing
    Austria's hospitality, I simply do not believe that we can
    so simply compare US/Canada and Austrian immigration policies.

    re.-1: You can't tell, since what you ARE is a result of what you've
    BEEN. Austria is a small, Central European state, and was quite a huge
    Empire up to WWI.
    
    Btw. WWI and II, despite its economic poorness and political
    instability, Austria has always accepted former 'Austrians' to return
    home (i.e. Hungarians, Polish, Slovenians, Serbes, what have we...).
    This rule evolved into a tradition reflected by a set of laws.
    
    And yes, there are quite many Afghans, Kurdes, Vietnamese, Greeks,
    Turcs, Iranians, Armenians in Austria, these days (you can tell: they
    have EXCELLENT restaurants :-). These together make certainly more than
    4000 persons/month. 
    
    There's quite a lot of elements which I do not appreciate in Austria
    (which is why I do not live there anymore), but that country's attitude
    towards refugees is great, by most standards. 
    
    They are getting tough on the previously mentioned 'economic' refugees,
    though. They are not granted asylum, but get a prolongated tourist
    visa. If during this time they can't settle their situation, they
    are asked to leave.

    Chris
    
    P.S.:	Imagine that the US would have to accept, say, in one
    		stance, 12.5 million Russians. This would be about the
    		population/immigrant ratio which Austria had to deal
	    	with during the Hungary and Czechoslovaqia crises.

    
    >Maybe the Austria-Canada/US itinerary is more attractive than the
    >Austria-Israel itinerary. Israel is doing a major humanitarian act by
    >delivering the visa. It would be counterdicting itself if it were to
    >insist on all of these people to be forced to come to the country.

Wrong, Israel is not contradicting itself.  Israel has always worked with 
refugees for the sole purpose of aliyah (immigration) to Israel, even and
especially during the pre-state days of illegal immigration.

David    

    re: .-1
    
        "counterdict" and "contradict" are two different words.

    re: .11
    
    "counterdict" was a typo by the author of the reply, I believe.
    
    David

    I think it only honest to add that the pressure to restrict the
    granting of visas to a venue in which Jews will have no choice but
    to come to Israel first, is by and large the work of the right wing
    in Israel, not Labor, and is indeed opposed by most russian olim
    to Israel. The Likud (and its more rightwing partners and potential
    partners) must bring about massive aliya from Russia or their plans
    for greater Eretz Yisrael are doomed to failure. (They may be
    anyway, but that is another matter.) Why do russian olim oppose
    the plan, for the most part? I read Scharansky's opposition a few
    months ago and it was because 1. he felt it an affront to the basic
    need of getting jews out of the USSR first of all, and 2. he felt
    it would in fact work against emigration from the USSR.
    -AZ

    re: .13
    
    You are completely mistaken.  This is not an issue of the right
    wing or any wing in Israel.  In fact one of the few issues that
    received a (almost)unanimous vote in the cabinet was the "rerouting".
    
    A larger rate of aliya is needed for the country in it's pre-1967
    boundries, not the "greater Israel" you speak of.  Scharansky's
    arguments notwithstanding, the consideration for the Jewish Agency and 
    Israel was the wasting of already strained resources in Vienna coupled
    with a low rate of aliya from the Soviet Union.
    
    Scharansky is correct about the cental issue being the right to
    emigrate from the USSR, but then people should concentrate on that
    as the goal, not abuse of an Israeli visa.
    
    David

    I'm sure the Russians would put down the country of choice if they
    could but the situation doesn't allow.  
    
    WS

    re: .13 & .15
    
    I think that the further this discussion goes on the more
    misunderstanding will take place.  I think that those of you that
    oppose the new plan for emigration lack the necessary point of view
    from the Israeli side.
    
    Israel has expended millions of dollars in personnel and material
    aid for Soviet emigrants.  This money was intended for the emigrants
    to make aliya, not immigration to another country.  The Israelis
    understand this isn't an ideal world and therefore they feel that
    if any money and effort should be expended, it should be expended
    on the "Bucharest" route.
    
    David

    re: .17       
                  
    Re: Ceaucescu, completely non-applicable to the central issue here.
    You can tell me that he is the second coming of Vlad Dracula, but
    that won't change my opinion of what Israel's position should be
    vis-a-vis the east bloc.
    
    I couldn't tell you what is specifically happening to the Jewish
    community in Romania, but I do know that they at least enjoy the
    right to practice Judaism, which is beyond most Jews in the Soviet
    Union.  But don't take what I say here as my seal of approval of
    the Ceaucescu gov't.
    
    David   

re .17      >           -< Sponsoring the "Conducator"? No, thanks. >-
 
    I visited Romania in 1973. I talked to some Jews, and it did appear 
    that their situation is far better then that of Jews in the USSR.
    
    It is also noteworthy that Jews were not exterminated in the territories
    occupied by Romania during the WWII (although it has nothing to
    do with "Conducator").

    I think it is a cheap shot to translate a romanian term into german
    Fuhrer and make any kind of comparison based on that. You might as well
    call any leader "fuhrer". Ceausescu is a communist dictator, and
    Romania is one of the poorer "socialist" states, and it does not
    exactly have an exemplary record as far as minorities are concerned.
    But as you say, this is a "non-ideal" world, and I do not see anything
    wrong (out of the ordinary) with doing _business_ with Romania. That
    country did allow many of its Jews to emigrate to Israel and USA, and
    it proved to be much less anti-semitic than Poland or Russia. So why is
    it so wrong to deal with them? 

re:    < Note 510.17 by ULYSSE::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool" >
                 -< Sponsoring the "Conducator"? No, thanks. >-

    Chris: 
    
    I didn't mean to pick on you today ;-)
    
    As I mentioned before in .21, I visited Romania several years ago.
    Now, I had a chance to re-acquaint myself with Romanian affairs.
    You are right, things are pretty bad there. I did not think that
    the situation could degrade so rapidly since my visit. Ceausescu
    is practically demolishing the country, and this includes economy,
    intellectual resources, and ethnic relations.
    
    It must be hard for Israel to deal with a "friendly pathological
    dictator", but today, this problem is probably not high on their list
    of priority items.
    
    Alex