editorials
Russia Targets the Jewish Agency
T here’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding the
Jewish Agency for Israel office in Moscow.

Here is what we know: Last month, Russia’s Justice
Ministry called for the Jewish Agency to end
operations in that country. Last week, a Russian court
held a preliminary hearing on the Justice Ministry’s
application to close the office. The next hearing is
scheduled for Aug. 19.

The Jewish Agency is the quasi-governmental
body that, among other things, helps Jews immi-
grate to Israel. Russian Jews need the Jewish
Agency’s presence in their country to help facili-
tate aliyah efforts, which have surged since Russia
invaded Ukraine.

The potential closing of the Jewish Agency
office in Moscow is serious business — a move
that would have significant symbolic as well as
practical implications. The threatened closure
brings to mind the dark decades of the Soviet
Union when Jews were barred from leaving that
country and were punished for trying to do so.

That changed in the 1980s when the Iron Curtain
parted to allow emigration. Since 1989, some 1.7
million Jews have emigrated from the Former
Soviet Union, with more than a million of them
going to Israel.

Russian authorities have explained the request
for closure based upon the assertion that the
Russian Jews need the
Jewish Agency’s
presence in their country
to help facilitate aliyah
efforts. Jewish Agency’s collection of immigrant data vio-
lates Russia’s privacy laws. But no one takes that
claim seriously. Instead, most agree that the move
is retaliation for Israel’s new leadership, headed
by Prime Minister Yair Lapid, speaking out against
Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine, Naftali
Bennett was Israel’s prime minister, and Lapid was
foreign minister. Bennett sought to position him-
self as a neutral. He traveled to Russia early in the
war to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin
and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and
sought to mediate potential peace talks between
Ukraine and Russia. That never happened. But
even as Bennett was playing the neutral, his
foreign minister was vocal in joining Western con-
demnation of Russia’s aggression.

Another cause for mounting tension is Russia’s
increasing embrace of Iran, a country whose
leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction.

Last month, Putin traveled to Iran for talks with
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This was
Putin’s first visit to a country outside the former
USSR since the invasion of Ukraine, and it sent a
clear message.

Israel is watching these developments closely.

Lapid has warned Russia against closing the
Jewish Agency office, saying that doing so would
hurt the relationship between the two countries.

Israel wants to send a diplomatic team to Russia
to discuss the issue, and that’s a good idea. This
is not a matter that should be debated by the
parties on the public stage. It is a serious matter
that requires careful diplomacy that can only be
handled in private.

And diplomatic navigation will likely require
acceptance of the fact that, in a world of bad
choices, it is more important for Russian Jews to
have access to a Jewish Agency office than to
have Israel join the Western boycott of Russia.

Quite simply, Israel must avoid poking the Russian
bear. JE
Realpolitik in the MD-4 Primary
I srael isn’t much of an issue to the voters of Prince
George’s County, Maryland. But last month’s
Democratic primary in Maryland’s 4th Congressional
District, which includes most of the county, attracted
millions of dollars in dueling pro-Israel campaign
contributions. In the end, the better candidate won — former
state’s attorney Glenn Ivey, who has a strong
record of performance and communal involve-
ment, prevailed and will likely be elected in
November in the heavily blue district. Although
Ivey shares many of the progressive positions of
his defeated rival, former Rep. Donna Edwards,
including on gun control, health care and climate
change, they differ on Israel.

Ivey supports continued U.S. security assis-
tance for Israel, embraces a further strengthening
of the U.S.-Israel relationship and opposes the
boycott, divestment and sanctions movement
and other efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state.

Edwards’ record in office was less than stellar
when it came to Israel.

Enter the pro-Israel money, for both candi-
dates. Nearly $6 million went to Ivey from United
14 AUGUST 4, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with
AIPAC. Another pro-Israel group, Democratic
Majority for Israel, spent an additional $426,000
in support of Ivey. The Washington Post reported
that about half of Ivey’s $1 million in campaign
contributions also came from AIPAC donors.

Edwards received some $720,000 in PAC money
from J Street.

How was the money used? Not to play up the
strengths of either candidate and largely not to
address substantive policy differences between
them. Instead, the money was used to fund attack
ads, many of which ended with these words:
“Donna Edwards, aloofness from the details of
local problem solving, notorious for inattention to
constituent services. UDP is responsible for the
content of this ad.”
In the blizzard of ads leading up to the primary
vote, Israel was not mentioned.

So, what have we learned from this $7 million
exercise? We learned a lesson in contemporary
politics and the outsized influence national spe-
cial-interest groups can have in local political
campaigns. The expenditures were entirely legal,
above board and transparent. But the sheer mag-
nitude of the effort is noteworthy.

Members of special interest groups, including
AIPAC, have lent support to political candidates of
all stripes for decades. Many did so in a very pub-
lic way, while others worked more quietly behind
the scenes. Both were effective. But now, with
changes in how supporters can organize and fund
political messaging, AIPAC and other groups have
chosen to take the more public approach through
affiliated super PACs. And they have mastered the
art of negative ads.

We know from media reports that many vot-
ers in Prince George’s County had never heard
of AIPAC and that some expressed concern
and confusion when informed about millions in
“outside money” being invested in their local
campaign. But we also know that the investment
succeeded. Ivey overcame an initial significant
early polling deficit and won the election by 16
percentage points.

It is hard to argue with success. We are happy
that the better candidate won. But the message of
Israel got lost. JE