1961, p. 206)
      Upon experiencing the impulse to blame Ukrainians for welcoming the Germans, the impartial
      journalist might recognize that all groups had been traumatized by their exposure to Communism,
      and all hoped for relief from the Germans.
      (8) Chief Rabbi of Ukraine. Although Rabbi Bleich is introduced by 60 Minutes as the "Chief
      Rabbi for the Ukraine," he is in fact an American from Brooklyn, New York, perhaps unqualified
      to hold such an exulted title for several reasons: (1) Rabbi Bleich is a Hasidic Jew, and so
      perhaps not authorized to speak for other Jewish sects. (2) Rabbi Bleich is newly-arrived in
      Ukraine carrying his full load of American-engendered prejudices, and seemingly unaware of the
      history of Ukraine, or even of the contemporary situation of Jews in Ukraine. (3) Rabbi Bleich,
      as of the date of the 60 Minutes broadcast, spoke some Russian, but negligible Ukrainian. Some
      Ukrainians might think that one prerequisite for the post of "Chief Rabbi of Ukraine" would be
      fluency in Ukrainian.
      The title of "Chief Rabbi of Ukraine," then, may be viewed as being self-proclaimed and
      presumptuous, and as carrying no standing within Ukraine or anywhere else. In crediting the
      title, Morley Safer was just blowing up Rabbi Bleich's credentials to give his words more
      weight.
      (9) An observation or a hypothetical case? Rabbi Bleich is shown saying, "Obviously, if someone
      - you know? - screams 'Let's drown the Russians in Jewish blood!' there isn't too much love lost
      there."
      Yes, if anyone did scream such a thing, we might safely infer that the screamer was motivated by
      a hatred of both Russians and Jews (even though we wouldn't be able to conclude much about
      anybody other than the screamer). But in fact Rabbi Bleich does not claim that anybody ever did
      scream such a thing. The 60 Minutes viewer is left with the impression that Rabbi Bleich was
      reporting something that he witnessed, but his wording commits him to nothing more than
      contemplating a hypothetical case.
      (10) Lenin's Jewish ancestors. After interviewing the editor of Lviv's daily For a Free
      Ukraine, 60 Minutes cuts to Rabbi Bleich saying "There's an article that came out just two weeks
      ago where they tried to prove that Lenin was really Jewish...." The impression created is that
      this article was published in For a Free Ukraine, and that For a Free Ukraine is a major
      newspaper in Western Ukraine's major city.
      In fact, however, "there's an article that came out" does not precisely inform us where the
      article was published. Perhaps it was published in Ukraine's equivalent of a supermarket
      tabloid. Perhaps it wasn't published at all, but only circulated in pamphlets. Perhaps it's
      just a rumor and nobody can produce such an article. But even if published in For a Free
      Ukraine - so what?
      A higher standard of journalism than that exhibited by 60 Minutes would have reported who was
      the author of this article, what position he holds in Ukrainian society, how good were his data
      and his arguments, where was the article published, about how many people may have read it, does
      anyone believe it, does it alter anybody's attitudes toward contemporary Jews even if they do
      believe it? - But of course such questions weren't answered, and we are left able to conclude no
      more than that Rabbi Bleich wishes us to believe in the existence of a virulent Ukrainian
      anti-Semitism.
      The Bleich statement is representative of a large number of statements in which events are
      referred to obliquely, indirectly, vaguely - and on this basis, the viewer is invited to jump to
      some strong conclusion. "I get the impression from people...." says Mr. Safer. Now there's a
      lazy substitute for investigative reporting! What people? Why can't we see these people for
      ourselves? Perhaps they are just a couple of cronies of Mr. Safer's whose company he prizes
      because they are as bigoted as himself. And what do we care what one or two of Mr. Safer's
      friends think? 60 Minutes should show its viewers the data on which these people are basing
      their conclusions and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. But this is not what 60
      Minutes did - its broadcast was short on data and long on instructions on how to feel.
      (11) Morley Safer, genetic theorist. Mr. Safer tells us that "The Church and Government of
      Ukraine have tried to ease people's fears, suggesting that ... Ukrainians, despite the
      allegations, are not genetically anti-Semitic."
      Here we see a new escalation in the level of irrationality with Mr. Safer now divulging to us
      the existence of the allegation that Ukrainians are genetically anti-Semitic. For an
      anti-Semitism which Mr. Safer failed to document, he now suggests a cause from the fairyland of
      pseudoscience, and suggests furthermore that the Church and Government of Ukraine have dignified
      this charge by denying it. That Ukrainians are pronouncedly anti-Semitic, Mr. Safer takes as a
      given requiring no corroborative evidence, and so he shifts attention to speculating as to how
      they could have gotten that way.
      Perhaps Morley Safer will appreciate how bizarre and inflammatory his statement is when its
      direction is reversed: "The World Jewish Congress has tried to ease the growth of
      anti-Semitism, suggesting that Jews, despite the allegations, are not genetically predisposed to
      usury." Now if Mr. Safer had heard that on Ukrainian television, he could have brought it back
      as very good evidence not only of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, but of Ukrainian irrationality as
      well - but he didn't hear any such thing during his visit to Ukraine, and he brought back
      nothing. To encounter that degree of hatred and that level of irrationality, you have to leave
      Ukraine for the United States and tune in to 60 Minutes.
      (12) Church of Ukraine. But even while rebutting Mr. Safer's main point, I have been carelessly
      adopting his slovenly terminology. "Church of Ukraine"? What "Church of Ukraine"? There is no
      "Church of Ukraine" any more than there is a "Church of Canada" or a "Church of the United
      States." Ukraine has more than one variety of Orthodox church, more than one variety of
      Catholic church, more than one variety of Protestant church; and Ukraine has as well a full
      slate of non-Christian religions. It even has agnostics and atheists just like a real
      country.
      Thus it is not only in his big lies, but also in his small misstatements that Mr. Safer reveals
      to us that his perception of Ukraine is uninformed, indeed wholly stereotypical. To him,
      perhaps all Ukrainians conform to some archetypal image - wielding a saber, hard-drinking,
      pogrom-prone, and Christian (to the question "What kind of Christian?" we almost expect Mr.
      Safer to ask "You mean Ukraine has more than one kind?"). And so when Mr. Safer speaks, he does
      not report what he has recently observed in Ukraine, but rather reads off from his internal
      image. He goes to Ukraine not to study it, not to report on its reality, but merely to provide
      a backdrop for the proclamation of his own preconceptions, of his own prejudices so deeply
      rooted that confirmation scarcely seems necessary, of his own stereotypes so apparently
      unchallengeable that the anticipation that they might be in error does not enter consciousness.
      (13) Peasants with nuclear weapons. Mr. Safer states: "Uneducated peasants, deeply
      superstitious, in possession of this bizarre anomaly: nuclear weapons capable of mass
      destruction thousands of miles away!"
      This is one piece of information that I did find both newsworthy and disquieting. Although it
      requires us to lay aside data indicating that American education is inferior to Ukrainian, we
      cannot but be persuaded that the farmers shown in the broadcast were indeed both uneducated and
      deeply superstitious - one look at their weatherbeaten faces and deep wrinkles and I was
      convinced.
      The information is so alarming and the threat to world stability so great that I expect Mr.
      Safer must have immediately telegraphed President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine to inform him that
      the uneducated and deeply superstitious peasants had seized control of Ukraine's nuclear
      weapons, and to urge him to recapture the weapons and place them back under the control of the
      educated and less-deeply-superstitious peasants.
      Who can argue with Mr. Safer's syllogism here? - Old and wrinkled people are uneducated and
      deeply superstitious. Here is an old and wrinkled person who may or may not be Ukrainian.
      Therefore, it is dangerous for Ukraine to have nuclear weapons. Out of respect for Mr. Safer's
      personal vulnerability, I will refrain from demonstrating the retargetability of this syllogism.
      But to be fair to Mr. Safer, he did not really say that the peasants were in possession of the
      nuclear weapons - what he actually said was that they were in possession of an anomaly. This is
      an unfamiliar concept, and I cannot get my mind around it - what does it mean to say that
      someone is in possession of an anomaly? Perhaps what it means in this case is simply this
      that Mr. Safer sensed that even the uncritical 60 Minutes viewer at whom he was aiming his story
      wasn't going to believe that the Ukrainian peasants had gotten control of the nuclear weapons,
      and so the thing to do was to speak gobbledygook - to suggest that they did but without actually
      saying it.
      (14) Why leave Ukraine? Mr. Safer suggests that the explanation of Jewish emigration from
      Ukraine is anti-Semitism: "The [anti-Semitic] message is clear to Lvov's Jews. They're leaving
      as quickly as they can get exit permits."
      I can think of an alternative interpretation. It is that given the catastrophic and
      deteriorating economic situation in Ukraine, practically everybody in the country wants to
      leave, but it is disproportionately Jews who can afford to and who are allowed to. Anybody who
      is emigrating from Ukraine today is, in comparison to the average Ukrainian, both wealthy and
      influential. Iosef Zissels, co-president of the Association of Jewish Organizations and
      Communities of Ukraine as well as co-president of Va'ad (Confederation of Jewish Communities of
      the Former Soviet Union) has stated that: "Many Jews are emigrating from Ukraine, not because of
      anti-Semitism, but because of the unstable situation in Ukraine. They see instability in
      Ukraine, as well as in all the former republics of the Soviet Union, as lasting a long time"
      (Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992).
      (15) Symon Petliura. Mr. Safer tells us that "Street names have been changed. There is now a
      Petliura Street. To Ukrainians, Symon Petliura was a great General, but to Jews, he's the man
      who slaughtered 60,000 Jews in 1919."
      But that is not what happened and it is irresponsible to broadcast such an accusation.
      Of course here as elsewhere, the 60 Minutes numbers may be somewhat inflated - Orest Subtelny
      gives us a more moderate range of 35,000 to 50,000 Jewish fatalities (Ukraine: A History, 1994,
      p. 363), though even the lower bound of 35,000 is still a horrendous number. The main point,
      though, is that in 1919, Ukraine was in a state of civil war. Two Russian armies - the
      Bolshevik Red Army and the anti-Bolshevik White army - were rampaging through the country, and
      both were killing Jews. The White Army, in particular, had an official policy of killing Jews,
      proceeded to do so in an organized and methodical manner, and can be credited with the majority
      of the victims:
      The Ukrainian pogroms differed from those of the Whites in two ways: in
      contrast to the premeditated, systematic undertakings of the Russians, they
      were spontaneous outbursts of demoralized and often drunken irregulars, and
      they were committed against the express orders of the high command. Unlike the
      White Russian generals such as Anton Denikin, the Ukrainian socialists,
      especially the Social Democratic party to which Petliura belonged, had a long
      tradition of friendly relations with Jewish political activists. Therefore,
      the Directory renewed Jewish personal-cultural autonomy, attracted prominent
      Jews such as Arnold Margolin and Solomon Goldelman into its government,
      appropriated large amounts of money for pogrom victims, and even negotiated
      with the famous Zionist leader Vladimir Zhabotinsky about the inclusion of
      Jewish police units into its army.
      But while Petliura's attitudes towards the Jews might have been
      well-intentioned, he was unable to control the otamany (the court-martial and
      subsequent execution of Semesenko and other partisan leaders did not improve
      the situation), and their dreadful deeds were associated with his government.
      And because many Jews considered themselves to be Russians, they found it
      easier to lay all the blame for the pogroms on Petliura and the Ukrainians
      rather than on Denikin and his Russian generals. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A
      History, 1994, pp. 363-364).
      The Jewish accusation against Petliura is that maybe he could have done more to prevent the
      pogroms. Well, maybe and maybe not. In any case, it is not fair for 60 Minutes to describe a
      man who implemented vigorous measures to protect Jewish interests and to stop the pogroms - but
      maybe could have done more - as "the man who slaughtered 60,000 Jews." Further insight into
      Symon Petliura's attitudes may be gleaned from the Petliura page on the Ukrainian Archive.
      (16) Blessing the SS. Mr. Safer informs us that "for this reunion [of Galicia Division veterans
      in Lviv recently], Cardinal Lubachivsky, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, gave his
      blessing, just as a predecessor did to the SS more than 50 years ago." The blessing of this predecessor was likely the blessing of Bishop Kotsylovskyi and was a blessing of the Galicia
      Division, which as we have seen above was not quite the same thing as the German SS.
      (17) The immaturity of blaming others. Mr. Safer tells us that "Western Ukraine also has a
      long, dark history of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others." Of course, no evidence of
      any unusual tendency to blame others is provided - but then the sharing of hatred such as Mr.
      Safer's is not an evidentiary matter, but is rather the warm feeling you get when you pass along
      a stereotype and your partners in hatred accept the stereotype without asking for evidence.
      But we may ask Mr. Safer just what it was that he might have had in mind. Perhaps it was the
      Ukrainian Holocaust that Ukraine should accept as its own fault and stop blaming others for?
      Perhaps it was the devastation wrought during the Second World War that Ukraine should start
      accepting as its own fault? Or maybe it was the eight decades of Moscow's strangulation of
      Ukraine's economy that Ukraine has really no one to blame for but itself? Ukraine has so many
      such calamities to choose from that it is impossible to guess - perhaps Mr. Safer would be kind
      enough to simply tell us precisely which of them he thinks it is that Ukraine should be mature
      enough to accept responsibility for having brought upon itself.
      (18) Dividing Ukraine. 60 Minutes gave the impression that its story focussed solely on Western
      Ukraine, when in fact a portion of it came from Central Ukraine. Rabbi Bleich's full title, for
      example, is not "Chief Rabbi for the Ukraine," but rather "Rabbi of Kiev and Ukraine," (where
      Kiev is in central Ukraine) and although 60 Minutes gave the impression that he was interviewed
      in Lviv, he was in reality interviewed in Kiev. Similarly, while Mr. Safer was in the middle of
      interviewing representatives of the Ukrainian Catholic church in Lviv and was saying "The
      Cardinal's deputy, Monsignor Dacko, denies traditional anti-Semitism in the Ukraine....", the
      viewer was being shown St. Volodymyr's cathedral which unlike Monsignor Dacko was in Kiev and
      which unlike Monsignor Dacko is Orthodox rather than Catholic. I suppose that 60 Minutes
      committed itself to the scene-setting introduction "... and the West, where we go tonight ...",
      and then suppressed the Kiev origin of some of its material so as to give the story the
      appearance of having a consistent locale; and perhaps as well 60 Minutes wished to restrict its
      smearing to Western Ukrainians so as to promote divisions within the country.
      (19) Freedom from slavery is too much freedom (for Ukrainians, anyway). The title of the 60
      Minutes broadcast, "The Ugly Face of Freedom" is puzzling. The freedom being referred to must
      be the freedom from Russian rule, and so the title suggests that Ukraine would be better off
      back within the Russian empire.
      But Morley Safer's suggestion is inappropriate for three reasons. First, anti-Semitism is
      strong in Russia and weak in Ukraine (Ukraine has no counterpart of either Pamyat or
      Zhirinovksy), and so it is unclear how falling back under Russian rule would assist Ukraine in
      avoiding anti-Semitism. Second, Ukraine's current problems are more rationally seen as being
      the result not of too much freedom, but of too little - specifically, Ukraine's problems are the
      result of continuing to be ruled by the old Communist nomenklatura that had originally been
      appointed from Moscow and that presently is robbing the country blind while obstructing economic
      reform. A weak economy, in turn, affects Ukrainian-Jewish relations by inviting scapegoating
      from each group against the other and by promoting Jewish emigration out of Ukraine. Thus, it
      is not too much freedom, but rather the absence of freedom from rule by Moscow's appointees that
      most stands in the way of good Ukrainian-Jewish relations. Third, it is surprising to hear an
      American objecting to freedom from slavery. Some 60 Minutes viewers will notice that Mr. Safer
      objects to it on behalf of other people and not on behalf of Americans. I expect that if anyone
      were to argue that American anti-Semitism or America's low quality of education or America's
      high crime rate is the result of America having broken away from England, Mr. Safer would not
      agree. I expect also that if England had been guilty of the horrific crimes against America
      that Russia has been guilty of against Ukraine, Mr. Safer would find the suggestion odious. In
      fact, Mr. Safer's suggestion is as odious to Ukrainians as would be the suggestion that Israel
      would be better off under German rule would be odious to Jews. No, Mr. Safer's suggestion is
      more odious - this because Berlin today is not ruled by former Nazis, whereas Moscow today is
      ruled by people who just a few years ago were ardent Communists and who today continue to be
      ardent imperialists.
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Is there any? Of course there is. Anti-Semitism is universal. Ukraine has some, just as does
      the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more anti-Semitism in Ukraine than
      elsewhere? 60 Minutes said so - as much as said that Ukraine leads the world in anti-Semitism
      but failed to provide any evidence of this, and in fact does not seem to be aware of how to go
      about obtaining such evidence.
      The American Jewish Committee did a better job - it sponsored a survey in 1992 about attitudes
      toward Jews in the republics of the former Soviet Union, and its findings do not support 60
      Minutes' allegations:
      Based on the total of anti-Jewish responses to items appearing in the
      questionnaire, the rank order of the states from most hostile to least hostile
      toward Jews in 1992 is as follows: Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Lithuania,
      Azerbaijan, Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova and Estonia. (Ukrainian Weekly,
      June 21, 1992, p. 6)
      Worthy of note, too, is that between 1990 and 1992, attitudes toward Jews became more negative
      in all of the above republics, with the exception of Ukraine and Moldova, in which two republics
      the attitudes became more positive. The failure of Ukraine to rank high on anti-Jewish
      responses in this survey should have been noted by 60 Minutes, as should the improvement in
      attitudes from 1990 to 1992. Instead of applauding the reality of favorable Ukrainian attitudes
      toward Jews, and the reality that they are getting even better, 60 Minutes seemed bent on
      encouraging their deterioration.
      And, if 60 Minutes had wanted personal testimony concerning Ukrainian attitudes toward Jews to
      bolster the dry facts coming from the opinion poll, then it could have consulted any number of
      Ukrainian Jews who would have been happy to correct 60 Minutes' biases. The above-mentioned
      Iosep Zissels, for example, would have offered observations such as that "There was a time when
      the leaders of Pamiat [or "Pamyat" - the Russian anti-Semitic organization] would travel from
      Russia to recruit supporters in Ukraine. They didn't find any. We are well aware of this fact"
      (Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992, p. 4)
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Is there any? Of course there is. Jewish Ukrainophobia is universal. Ukraine has some, just
      as does the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more Jewish Ukrainophobia in
      Ukraine than elsewhere? Don't ask 60 Minutes - to ask such a question is to violate rules of
      political correctness.
      One thing missing from the above discussion of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, then, is any mention of
      the reciprocal attitude of Jewish Ukrainophobia (or more generally of Jewish phobic responses
      toward Gentiles or peoples of any other creed). But perhaps we would be able to evaluate
      statistics on the rate of Ukrainian anti-Semitism more intelligently if we were able to put them
      side by side with statistics on Jewish Ukrainophobia. If Ukrainian anti-Semitism shows a
      declining trend over some interval, would this fact not be enriched by a comparison with the
      trend of Jewish Ukrainophobia over the same interval? In a discussion of Ukrainian-Jewish
      relations, how is it conceivable that the attitudes of Ukrainians toward Jews is deemed relevant
      and susceptible to quantification, but the attitudes of Jews toward Ukrainians is not? Here, as
      in several other instances above, we see a curious paralysis of the comparative function, a
      puzzling Ukrainian passivity in allowing the Jewish side to set the agenda for discussion and to
      limit its parameters. Ukrainian motes are put under the microscope and measured and analyzed,
      but Jewish beams are not.
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      Mailbag
      60 Minutes' Mailbag comment on October 30, 1994 - the Sunday following the original The Ugly
      Face of Freedom broadcast - was inadequate. It failed to retract or correct any of the
      misinformation noted above. It failed to present the other side of the story. It continued to
      pour fuel on the fire.
      Of what possible relevance is it that - as 60 Minutes reports a letter as saying - a fraction of
      Ukrainians refuses to admit that they collaborated with the Nazis? Possibly, some minuscule
      fraction does irrationally refuse to admit this (60 Minutes offered no data, of course) - but so
      what? The same might be true of every other group. Possibly some minuscule fraction of Jews
      irrationally refuses to admit that Jews collaborated with the Nazis (I don't have any data
      either), and yet 60 Minutes does not seem to find the existence of this group noteworthy enough
      to broadcast.
      The following Sunday, November 6, 1994, 60 Minutes continued to focus on the Ukrainian reaction
      to the original broadcast, but without correction, without retraction, without apology. 60
      Minutes is willing to go as far as admitting that Ukrainians are upset, but not as far as
      divulging that the cause of that upset is irresponsible and negligent reporting.
      As of November 21, 1997, 60 Minutes has not broadcast any correction or retraction or apology.
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      A Sense of Responsibility
      Jews have lived with no other peoples as intimately and for as long as they have with
      Ukrainians. In this shared history, there have been bright periods and dark episodes. It is
      possible to imagine a shared future in which the bright periods predominate and the dark
      episodes are banished. This is the future that Ukrainians and Jews should strive toward, this
      is the image that should guide them in their dialogues and that should have guided Mr. Safer in
      his broadcast. Perhaps it is already the attitude that inspires the majority of both Ukrainians
      and Jews.
      The Jewish claim to a share of the newly-created nation of Ukraine is as tenable as that of the
      ethnic Ukrainians and of the ethnic Russians and others who reside there. At present, all three
      of these groups are beginning to mine that claim in relative peace. Differences are being
      overlooked, cooperation is the norm, a bright future is possible.
      Into this scene burst immature and undiplomatic people like Morley Safer needing a sensational
      story, Simon Wiesenthal desperate to retain his relevance in the modern world by having it
      believed that 1941 is repeating itself, and Yaakov Bleich disoriented by having been plucked
      from the United States to fill this exotic role of rabbi of Ukraine and these three show no
      grasp of the political situation, no comprehension of the complex world that they are
      simplifying into their stereotypes, no sympathy for impulses toward reconciliation that are
      manifest on all sides, certainly no sense of responsibility for nurturing these impulses. This
      gang of three has no stake in Ukraine - Mr. Safer leaves for home immediately after reading his
      lines into the camera, Mr. Wiesenthal lives in Vienna (where needing to get along with Germans
      but not Ukrainians, he expediently concludes that Germans weren't as bad as Ukrainians), and
      Yaakov Bleich - unhappy in his discovery that in slinging mud he has become muddied, every day
      more deeply convinced that he has been miscast in this role of rabbi of Ukraine - we may expect
      will shortly be catching a plane for home. What do any of them care if they are stirring up a
      hornet's nest in Ukraine?
      The Jews who are left behind in Ukraine, who have a stake in Ukraine, who need to get along - to
      these 60 Minutes does not give air time. It's the irresponsible ones with nothing to lose who
      are able to offer the more sensational testimonials.
      And not only does 60 Minutes' trio of provocateurs have nothing to lose from chaos erupting in