ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

sympathy for Ukrainians was contrary to your plan.

Had you managed to find a Jewish member of parliament and television broadcaster who had

died in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances, then you would have had one small piece

of evidence for the anti-Ukrainian conclusions that you offered. Had you managed to

find a Russian member of parliament and television broadcaster who had died in Ukraine

under mysterious circumstances, then you would have had one small piece of evidence for

the anti-Ukrainian conclusions that you offered. However, you found neither of these

things. In Ukraine, death under mysterious circumstances is reserved for prominent

Ukrainians, which conclusion you had no interest in broadcasting.

Below, I identify four incidents which I have brought to your attention either in three

earlier letters, or in the present one. Although the first two cases occurred before

your broadcast of 23Oct94, and the second two occurred after, all serve to support the

conclusion that within today's Ukraine, it is Ukrainians who are the targets of

violence:

Date of my letter

Subject of my letter

Date of Attack

Violence that you should have reported in your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom

15May99

Who murdered Volodymyr Ivasiuk?

April 1979

30Jun99

Who murdered Vadim Boyko?

February 14, 1992

Violence that you might have caused by your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom

09Apr99

Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?

Summer 1995

17May99

Who murdered Volodymyr Katelnytsky?

July 7-8, 1997

As the first two of the above attacks occurred prior to your 23Oct94 broadcast, then

your fault is that you neglected to report them. And as the second two attacks occurred

after your 23Oct94 broadcast, then your fault is that you may have helped cause them.

That is, your 23Oct94 broadcast, The Ugly Face of Freedom, served to demonstrate to

Ukraine's assassins not only that violence against Ukrainians would go unreported in the

world press, but also that even as Ukrainians continued to be butchered, the world press

would portray them - the victim Ukrainians - as themselves butchers. You did not

yourself wield any knife or pull any trigger or tighten any garotte, but you informed

those that were predisposed to do so that they might expect impunity if they did. For

this reason, I consider you to have blood on your hands, some of it Maksym Tsarenko's,

and some of it Volodymyr Katelnytsky's.

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Yaakov Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,

Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal.

Morley Safer Letter 12 01Jul99 Who murdered Borys Derevyanko?

The plainest moral to be drawn from the Derevyanko-Hurvits story is that when a

muckraking Ukrainian editor takes on a corrupt Jewish politician, the Ukrainian editor

ends up dead.

July 1, 1999

Morley Safer

60 Minutes, CBS Television

51 W 52nd Street

New York, NY

USA 10019

Morley Safer:

The Committee to Protect Journalists described the contract killing of Ukrainian editor

Borys Derevyanko thusly:

Borys Derevyanko, Vechernyaya Odessa

Date of Death: August 11, 1997

Place of Death: Odessa

Derevyanko, editor in chief of Vechernyaya Odessa, a popular and

influential thrice-weekly newspaper, was fatally shot at point-blank

range on his way to work on the morning of August 11 near the Press

House, where the newspaper's offices are located. Colleagues believe

the killing of Derevyanko, who was editor of Vechernyaya Odessa for 24

years, was related to the newspaper's opposition to the policies of

Odessa's mayor. The chief regional prosecutor declared the murder a

contract killing and launched an official investigation. Local

authorities announced in September that they had arrested a suspect,

described as a professional assassin, who confessed to killing

Derevyanko, but they gave no details about his confession.

I would add that the Odessa mayor which the above account neglects to name was the

corrupt Eduard Hurvits, who was particularly threatened by Borys Derevyanko's opposition

because of municipal elections that were coming up in 1998. The comment concerning the

arrest of an assassin gives a misleading impression - in today's Ukraine, contract

killings are never solved, and those who order them are never punished.

Today, Borys Derevyanko is dead, and Eduard Hurvits, barred by his corruption from

holding the office of mayor of Odessa, continues his criminal career as a member of the

Ukrainian parliament. Photographs of Derevyanko and Hurvits are shown below:

Newspaper editor

Borys Derevyanko

Odessa Mayor

Eduard Hurvits

The table which I began in my letter to you of 30Jun99 can now be elaborated with

another entry:

Date of my letter

Subject of my letter

Date of Attack

Violence that you should have reported in your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom

15May99

Who murdered Volodymyr Ivasiuk?

April 1979

30Jun99

Who murdered Vadim Boyko?

February 14, 1992

Violence that you might have caused by your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom

09Apr99

Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?

Summer 1995

17May99

Who murdered Volodymyr Katelnytsky?

July 7-8, 1997

01Jul99

Who murdered Borys Derevyanko?

August 11, 1997

As the conclusion of your 23Oct94 60 Minutes story, The Ugly Face of Freedom, was that

Ukraine is a place in which Ukrainians practice violence against Jews, it is highly

relevant that Borys Derevyanko is Ukrainian and Eduard Hurvits is Jewish. You went to

Ukraine looking for evidence of Ukrainians harming Jews, you failed to find such

evidence, but you broadcast your conclusion anyway. The true story that you would not

broadcast, and that was readily documentable, is that Ukraine is a place in which Jews

harm Ukrainians. The plainest moral to be drawn from the Derevyanko-Hurvits story is

that when a muckraking Ukrainian editor takes on a corrupt Jewish politician, the

Ukrainian editor ends up dead. That is the reality of Ukraine. It was the reality of

Ukraine when you visited it in 1994, it was the reality of Ukraine before 1994, and it

has been the reality of Ukraine since 1994.

As in earlier letters, I fault you for not reporting such incidents as are in the above

table that took place before 1994, and I fault you for precipitating such incidents that

took place after 1994. Thus, to the blood that is already on your hands, I add the

blood of Borys Derevyanko. You had the opportunity in your 1994 broadcast to come out

on the side of the victims against the butchers, but you preferred to side with the

butchers against the victims, and Borys Derevyanko has been one of the casualties of

your decision.

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Yaakov Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,

Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal.

Michaud refuses to apologize,

Bouchard facing PQ split

WebPosted Thu Dec 21 08:51:59 2000

QUEBEC CITY - A controversy within the Parti

Quйbйcois has escalated and could threaten the

leadership of Premier Lucien Bouchard.

It began last week when an influential member of

the PQ, who wants to run in a byelection, made

comments about the Holocaust.

Bouchard demanded the comments be withdrawn.

Yves Michaud refused.

Now people within the PQ are taking sides.

On Wednesday, as the

National Assembly was

wrapping up for the

Christmas break, the

controversy took a

sharp turn for the worse.

Michaud said he has no

reason to apologize.

"I have never said or written anything that

minimizes the Nazi horror against the Jews," he

said. "What you are doing to demonize a member

of your party is a dishonour and not worthy of a

premier."

"Michaud said he was fed up with Jews always

saying they're the only people to have suffered, and

I won't have it," said Bouchard.

Michaud has been around the PQ a long time. He

is a committed, hardcore sovereigntist, part of a

faction in the party that's often doubted Bouchard's

commitment.

Last week, on radio, and at a commission studying

the French language, he said Quebec's Jews were

intolerant, voting as they do en masse against

sovereignty, and they believe they're the only

people to have suffered throughout history.

Michaud wants to be a PQ candidate in an

upcoming byelection, but Bouchard's answer came

Tuesday after a meeting with his caucus. Withdraw

either your remarks, or your candidacy.

Michaud will do neither. And now, he's gathering

powerful support.

He has the backing of Bouchard's predecessor,

Jacques Parizeau, and some influential

sovereigntist groups. They say his remarks were

inelegant, inopportune, but not anti-Semitic.

Bouchard in the meantime says the sovereignty

movement must show the world it will not tolerate

Michaud's opinions. He has the backing of his

caucus, but in some cases, it sounds almost

reluctant.

Now, an emerging question: Can a split become

an irrevocable rupture costing Bouchard the

leadership?

He asked his party to think about it over the

holidays. But there's no apparent solution.

In February, the party must choose its byelection

candidate and right now, both sides seem locked

into their positions facing a deadline they cannot

avoid.

POSTED AT 4:04 AM EST Wednesday, December 20

Bouchard courts confrontation

By RHЙAL SЙGUIN

Globe and Mail Update

Quebec - Premier Lucien Bouchard is prepared to

put his leadership on the line if the Parti Quйbйcois fails to support him on several

contentious issues, including his intention to ban a prominent PQ member from running in

a by-election next spring.

"He is prepared to take on the party," said a senior party member. "We get the sense that if

the party executive goes against him on the Yves Michaud affair, on language or on his

strategy for achieving sovereignty, the party will shatter. The mood is such that we may be

looking at a confrontation between the leader and the party. He warned us it could be

fatal."

The source said this means that Mr. Bouchard could resign.

Shareholder-rights activist and party member Yves Michaud, who had hoped to stand for

the PQ in a by-election next spring, caused a furor earlier this month with his comments

about Jews and ethnic voters.

The party executive will meet in the new year to hear Mr. Michaud defend himself and

decide whether to bar his candidacy. It will be the first in a number of showdowns within

the party.

In February, it must take a position on toughening the province's language laws and define

a strategy to achieve sovereignty. Mr. Bouchard has made it known that he will not tolerate

any radical position on language, and has warned members to be patient about another

referendum.

He has also said he favours blocking Mr. Michaud's candidacy.

The Premier will have to deal with the mounting frustrations or face a confrontation.

The split within sovereigntist ranks blew up in public this week as prominent separatist

leaders, including former premier Jacques Parizeau and Bloc Quйbйcois Leader Gilles

Duceppe, said Mr. Bouchard's PQ caucus had no right to support a motion in the National

Assembly reprimanding Mr. Michaud.

"The Parti Quйbйcois is divided in the same way Quebec society is divided," party

vice-president Marie Malavoy said Tuesday. "The party didn't close the door on his

candidacy ... but we have to discuss it as soon as possible."

Mr. Michaud outraged the Jewish community for stating that Jews were not the only ones

in the history of humanity to suffer. He also said there is an anti-sovereignty ethnic vote,

pointing to 12 polls in the Montreal suburb of Cфte-Saint-Luc, which has a high

concentration of Jewish residents, where everyone voted against sovereignty in the 1995

referendum. He also called the B'nai Brith, an influential Jewish-rights organization,

extremist and anti-sovereigntist.

Mr. Duceppe said Tuesday that he disagreed with Mr. Michaud's comments, but that the

National Assembly had no business condemning him for them. "It could be very

hazardous, if not dangerous, for the National Assembly to hand out blame like that," he

said. "It is one thing to ask a member of the National Assembly to apologize or withdraw

what he said, like we do in Ottawa. But when it's not a member of that assembly, I think

there are tribunals that can judge whether it was correct or not."

In a full-page letter in Le Devoir Tuesday, 30 prominent sovereigntists, including Mr.

Parizeau, accused the National Assembly of attempting to gag Mr. Michaud and denying

him his right to freedom of speech.

"We the undersigned, consider there is a real misuse of the role of the National Assembly,

a serious attack on the rights and freedoms of citizens and a violation of the Charter," they

wrote in French. It is "a flagrant act of injustice and a stunning show of arbitrary authority of

which every citizen can from now on fear of becoming the victim."

In interviews Monday, Mr. Parizeau compared Mr. Bouchard's defence of the National

Assembly's position to the type of authoritarian actions taken in the era of premier Maurice

Duplessis. "When I was young the Duplessis regime was in place. And a system that

demands that you either believe or die with pressures to adopt this or that, you can be sure

that I can see a throwback to that era. And that is why I protest," he said. "What Mr. Michaud