Israel Supports Russia’s Efforts to Preserve Truth about World War Two

Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Israeli President Shimon Peres played a significant role in recent Russian-American agreement regarding Europe-based missile defense shield system. In his phone conversations with Obama and during their personal meetings he insisted that abandoning the idea of basing missile defense in Europe was necessary. Why did he have to make efforts that would result in strengthening of Russia’s positions?

Photo: Israel Supports Russia’s Efforts to Preserve Truth about World War Two

Avigdor Eskin, Israeli political analyst, shared his comments on the matter:

“The decision of OSCE that equates Soviet soldiers with Nazi monsters, revengeful attitudes and encouragement of a new wave of Nazism at the state level in Ukraine and Baltic countries, along with the USA’s intentions to locate missile defense near the Russian borders, is a new and dangerous round of attempts to destabilize the situation in the region. It is also an attempt to try new methods in shaping borders and spheres of influence.

The specific role that Israel took up in its eagerness to persuade Obama’s administration not to aggravate a conflict reflects the state strategy of Israel. In recent years, Peres revisited his old role of a recognized master of diplomacy. It is not surprising that he started the project of preventing basing a missile defense shield system in Poland and the Czech Republic and went through with it.

The question of the reasoning behind Israel’s attempt to stop the spread of the American influence in the former CIS countries is very appropriate.

The processes associated with the attempts to create a blockade situation for Russia and build a new order in the region do not coincide with Israel’s interests.

In order to understand the essential differences between the interests of Israel and the USA in the post-Soviet region, let us imagine a possible continuation of Bush’s policy. Active revival of Nazism in Ukraine and the Baltic countries at some point started to gain momentum. Americans came to a conclusion that there was nothing good they could expect from these nations and that the only choice the said nations had was between the color of red (getting close with Russia), and the color of brown.

Washington considers the second option to be the lesser evil. A US ambassador in Kiev personally awarded graduates of the Security Service of Ukraine with stripes knowing very well that he was encouraging the supporters of the Nazi ideology. The Academy was recently named after Shukhevych, the leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. The US Department of State and CIA not only condone the spirit of revengefulness in Ukraine and in the Baltic countries, but consciously encourage it guided by the intentions not to allow Russia to return to these lands.

A possibility of further unification and consolidation of Ukraine and the Baltic countries on the basis of rehabilitation and revival of Nazism is encouraged externally by similar tendencies in Romania that can spread to Moldavia up to an attempt of aggression against Transdniestria.

Yet, as it often happens with the Americans, their fosterlings have a tendency to get out of control. It cannot be ruled out that these post-Soviet tendencies will become the third power in Europe between the liberal West and Russia.

Israel is concerned with the American project in Eastern Europe because the Russophobia implanted there is immediately interwoven with Judaeophobia. Regardless of instantaneous rewards that can be tempting for the Israeli government, the spread of Nazism across the post-Soviet territory will always remain a direct threat not only for Jewish communities, but for Israel itself.

As for Russia, today it serves as a stabilizer not only in the Western regions of the former USSR, but also in the Caucuses and Central Asia.

If we look at separatist tendencies within Russia from Jerusalem, we will come to a conclusion that any scenario of Russia’s separation or collapse would cause strengthening of the anti-Israeli forces.

All these tendencies are dangerous for Israel. The enhancement of a popular attitude suggesting that every national group that declares itself a nation should create an independent country is also dangerous. “Right for a state” is a direct result of the liberal view of the world currently selectively used by the West, promoting double standards.

In the context of the Israeli-Russian relations, the struggle against the attempts to falsify the history of World War II is particularly important.

Mocking and hypocritical decision of OSCE that equated Soviet soldiers with killer monsters removed the scales from eyes of many Russians, revealing the real face of Western politicians who followed their Baltic colleagues. The basis for claims against Russia by Baltic revenge seekers and other supporters of Nazis is being prepared. Israel is concerned with these tendencies . Dr. Yehuda Bauer, a leading Israeli historian and scholar of the Holocaust, fiercely rebuffed historians revising the history.

At a special meeting in Yad Vashem, Israeli memorial for Holocaust remembrance, devoted to the 70^th anniversary of Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, he paid special attention to the attempts of the history falsification. He said that World War II had its liberators, Russian soldiers. He stated that while someone may not appreciate the Soviet regime, it had nothing to do with the fact that the Germans were the occupants and monsters, while Russian soldiers were the heroes and liberators.

In other words, the attempts to re-write World War II history are directed both against Israel and Russia, hence mutual interests. It is now up to those who govern in Jerusalem and Moscow. Peres’s success in preventing American missile defense shield system based in Eastern Europe is a great example for cooperation.

Will Russian leaders be wise enough to act in compliance with the real geopolitical vectors? Will they be able to promote real interests of our peoples or will they continue encouraging the liberalization processes, entropy and territorial concessions?”

Avigdor Eskin
Pravda.Ru

Read the original in Russian