Special to the JTA an Unprecedented Encounter

The Columbia University chapter of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ) was the scene of an unprecedented encounter when Leonid Verenikin, Counselor to the United Nations Mission of the Soviet Union, and Oleg Sosnovskiy, Third Secretary to the Mission, addressed a group of students, many of whom are active in the Soviet Jewry movement, on the topic of “Soviet Treatment of Minorities.”

This event was designed by SSSJ officials as an experiment to enable students to hear firsthand the anti-Jewish propaganda of the Soviet government.

The evening commenced in a conciliatory manner when Verenikin began his address by speaking of the suffering which Soviet Jewry had undergone during World War II. Yet, while Verenikin made mention of the fact that 70,000 Jews had been massacred by the Nazis at Babi Yar, he did so within the context of remarks regarding the suffering of all the Soviet people.

After outlining the contributions which Jews had made and continue to make to Soviet society in such areas as politics, literature, education, science and the arts, Verenikin moved into a discussion of the religious “freedom” which Jews enjoy in the USSR.

FIGURES DON’T ADD UP

Verenikin stated that according to a recent survey, only 2 percent of all Soviet Jews consider themselves religious. He stated that this amounted to about 16,000 people. This percent age and numerical figure directly conflicts with the actual amount of Soviet Jews presently in the USSR. While the Soviet contend that there are only 1.8 million Jews in the Soviet Union and base their statistics on this figure, Jewish officials place the true amount as closer to 2.5 million.

Verenikin tried to present a positive picture of the help which the Soviet government provides to the Jewish community. He stated that at present there are “92 synagogues in the USSR, 80 of which are in state-owned buildings provided free of charge for ‘believers.’ “The rest, he said, are rented. This was discounted by Glen Richter, head of the SSSJ, who estimated that the figure was closer to 55.

Verenikin claimed that the Moscow Choral Synagogue is a center for a yeshiva which trains “rabbis, cantors, Torah readers, and ritual slaughterers.” Verenikin maintained that in spite of the fact that “students receive daily kosher meals and double the amount of student stipends” which the government provides for other students, the school still has difficulty in attracting students.

Richter disagreed, asserting that in truth the yeshiva at the synagogue consists of a room located in the women’s section where three or four middle age men study and where no rabbinic ordination is issued.

CHALLENGED ON IMMIGRATION SITUATION

With regard to what he called the “truth of immigration to Israel,” Verenikin held that there is “no social basis for immigration.” He contended that Jews don’t suffer from unemployment, that their social rights are guaranteed and their lifestyle is improving. Verenikin cited statistics which were designed to show that only 1.6 percent of all Jews who ask to leave the USSR are denied permission. He claimed that the reason for refusal to grant permission was due to the fact that these people had recently undergone military training, had access to classified material or had financial claims against them that, once resolved, would enable them to leave.

According to SSSJ, the more accurate rejection rate of Soviet Jews stands closer to 20-25 percent. In addition, the Soviet government has been using for the past five years this same statistic of 1.6 percent. With regard to the financial claims that prevent Soviet Jews from leaving, there is truth to the fact that often these claims do exist. However, often a relative such as a parent who has to give permission to enable their child to leave will use this as an excuse to prevent their relative from being allowed to leave.

DENOUNCES ‘ZIONIST ELITE’

Verenikin then went on to attack what he called the “anti-Soviet policy” of the “Zionist elite.” He maintained that “Zionist circles tried to arouse the passions by saying that artificial barriers were raised by the Soviet Union” with regard to Jewish immigration.

Quoting statements which disgruntled Soviet Jews had made at a 1976 press conference in Moscow upon their return back from Israel, Verenikin spoke harshly of the “Israeli propagandists” who, he said, wanted Soviet Jews to settle on land occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War, on what he called the “frontier,” to serve “as a buffer in case of attack.”

Verenikin concluded his remarks by claiming that many Jews who never even considered immigrating received letters furnished by the “Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs” which purported to show that these people had blood ties in Israel and therefore should apply for exit visas.

A DENUNCIATION AND A LAPSE OF MEMORY

Perhaps the most interesting part of the evening came at the second half when Sosnovskiy added some additional comments and then took questions from the floor. Sosnovskiy asserted that since 1967, Israel was “interested in young blood to defend the state” and therefore, “an appeal was made to the Soviet Union” for immigration because of its large Jewish population.

During the question and answer period that followed, one person raised the issue of Anatoly Shcharansky and Maria Tiemkin. Sosnovskiy called Shcharansky a traitor and declared “traitors should be punished.” He denied ever hearing about Maria Tiemkin, the 21-year-old woman kidnapped by the KGB eight years ago and still in detention.

After the evening was over, one of the students pressed Sosnovskiy with regard to the Tiemkin affair, showing a brochure which carefully outlined the case. At this point, Sosnovskiy admitted hearing about Tiemkin. When asked how he had changed his mind, when moments before he denied any knowledge with regard to the case, he replied that he had seen it on a poster on the street before he arrived. The only problem with his answer was that he had arrived by private car.

The meeting was not constructed as a debate, but rather as an opportunity for these students to hear the methodology which Soviet officials utilize in this area. Students with whom I spoke were not “taken in” by the Soviet officials’ remarks but expressed greater awareness of how far Soviet officials will go to slant and distort the truth.