The Jewish Times

              THE BOSTON JEWISH TIMES
Write the vision and make it plain upon tables
HABUKKUK 2:2
TELEPHONE  (617) 442-9680
JUNE 1, 1989
VOL. XLIV, NO. 19
27 IYAR 5749
25«c
Soviet Jews Caught
In Immigration Vise
By Samuel Seidner
BOSTON — The liSSR has
dramatically liberalized the
number of exit visas for Soviet
Jews desiring to leave that
country. At the same time, the
United States has imposed new
immigration policies that
sharply curtail the number of
Soviet Jews allowed into this
country.
Last week, the INS tightened
the noose even further by leaking
its intent to implement a policy
that denies refugee status to any
immigrant who can gain access
to another country.
This ironic turn of events
reverses the decades-long effort
to free Soviet Jews from Russia,
an effort supported by numerous
organizations, politicians and
human rights activists. It also
betrays the belief, held by many,
that if Russia would only permit
freedom to its Jews, they would
be welcome in the L.S.
"I never thought I would see
the day when the Russians
would let out more Jews than we
were willing to take in," said
Li.S. Representative Barney
Frank, long active in the cause of
freeing Soviet Jewry. "I am very
disappointed."
Mr. Frank's disappointment
is shared by many other human
rights activists who have devoted
30 years to liberating Russian
Jews. Now, when a policy of
glasnost is sweeping the Soviet
Lnion and exit permits to Jews
and other oppressed minorities
are forthcoming, the gates to
freedom are slamming shut.
"The INS (Immigration and
Naturalization Service) has
snatched defeat from the jaws of
victory," said an official of a
Jewish organization dedicated
to Soviet Jewry.
Complicating the dilemma is
the position of Israel, which
maintains that Soviet Jews
should resettle in the Jewish
homeland. Israel is not
displeased by the new
immigration policies of the L.S.
because they may funnel greater
numbers of Russian Jews to
Israel at a time when aliyah has
dwindled to a trickle. In fact,
some American Jewish
observers are suggesting that
Israel may have had a hand in
influencing the new L.S.
immigration initiatives.
Immigrants to the Lnited
States enter under three broad
categories: immigrants, parolees
and refugees. To be eligible for
immigrant status usually means
that the applicant has relatives in
the Lnited States. To assist in
the reunification of families, the
INS   gives   priority   to   "first-
degree" relatives: parents or
children. A parolee status means
entry under "emergency"
conditions such as health or
political expediency. Lnder the
present law, parolees may never
become L.S. citizens, vote in
elections or serve in the armed
forces. Other political rights are
withheld or may be withdrawn.
In fact, the right of a parolee to
remain in the L.S. is reviewed
periodically.
In the past, Soviet Jews
coming to America were
classified as refugees, which
meant they were eligible for a
broad menu of welfare benefits
and full political rights. Lnder
the new regulations proposed by
the INS, the ceiling for refugees
allowed to enter the L.S.
annually   would   be   increased
from the present 94,000, but a
redistribution would result in
fewer Soviet Jews and more
refugees from Asian countries
and Latin America.
Congressman Frank rejects
the notion that Soviet Jews
gained entry to the L.S. at the
expense of other applicants. In
fact, 'he suggests, the new
regulations permit greater
numbers of Third World
refugees at the expense of Soviet
Jews.
The tide began to turn in
August 1988, when Attorney
General Edwin Meese wrote a
memo that abruptly changed the
manner in which the L.S.
awarded refugee status. Prior to
the "Meese memo," Soviet Jews
had been broadly classified as
refugees. Since last summer, that
status has been withdrawn and
each application is reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. Explanations
for this shift are murky, but
government officials have
indicated budgetary considera-
tions prompted the move.
This twist in American policy
slowed the processing of new
applicants at the same time the
LSSR was awarding more exit
permits. This resulted in the
present logjam at the transient
camp at Ladispoli, Italy. Several
thousand Jews are now living at
the camp, which resembles a tent
city.
Soviet Jews are adament
about not going to Israel, where
they would be eligible for new
immigrant status, which
includes a basket of welfare
benefits.   Their   knowledge   of
Israel is tainted by the Russian
media and they apparently fear
the intifada and the possiblity of
war. Hence, Soviet Jews insist
on emigration to the L.S. or
other Western countries.
Judy    Patkin,   executive
director of Action  for Soviet
Jewry   in   Waltham,   has  just
returned   from   Ladispoli.   She
says   that   Russian  Jews  there
"just stare vacantly" when Israel
is suggested as an option. Soviet
Jews prefer to remain in Russia,
suggested   Ms.   Patkin,   rather
than settle in Israel. She said her
group is "very distressed" by the
swift turn of events. "The danger
of turning  down  the  flow  of
Soviet Jewish emigration is that,
eventually, all Jewish emigration
will cease."
See Vise page 10
Dem Showdown This Week
By Susan Bloch
BOSTON - The ideological
battle between the official
Democratic Party and Citizens
for Participation in Political
Action (CPPAX) over the
platform plank on the Middle
East has taken a new turn, with
CPPAX drastically modifying
its position. Nonetheless, a
major battle over the statement
is expected to take place at the
party convention at Northeast-
ern Lniversity on June 3.
The reworded CPPAX
resolution calls for "a peaceful
and just resolution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict that
supports security for Israel and
an independent Palestinian state
in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. To achieve this end we
support negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians'
chosen representatives."
CPPAX, a left-leaning
organization, last week removed
the clause which called for "an
international peace conference
under Lnited Nations auspices
that includes negotiations
between Israel and the Palestine
Liberation Organization" and
the call for monitoring of "L.S.
aid to Israel to ensure that this
aid is not used to perpetuate
Israel's occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip."
Jamie Ann Sabino, co-chair
of the Progressive Caucus,
which had endorsed the original
resolution and an active member
of CPPAX, told The Boston
Jewish Times that the original
statement was amended to
"concentrate on principles and
not dictate process." According
to Ms. Sabino, those attending
last week's meeting, made the
change because the wording and
style of the original proposal was
not consistent with other
platform statements and the
complex issue did not lend itself
to in-depth discussion because of
limited convention time.
She denied the revision was
due to the formation of
Democrats for Middle East
Peace, which has embarked on a
major effort to contact the 5,000
delegates, urging them to
support the official Party plank.
The Mass. Democratic plank
calls for "a peaceful resolution of
the Middle East conflict building
on America's unequivocal
support for Israel which includes
Israel's right to exist within
secure borders" and calls for
application of the principles set
down in the Camp David
Accords, which recognize the
legitimate rights of the
Palestinians. "In particular, we
support Israel's call for free and
democratic elections in the West
Bank and Gaza, in order to
produce Palestinian leadership
to negotiate directly, without
preconditions, with Israel."
CPPAX does not support Mr.
Shamir's election proposal
because of its time frame for
Palestinian autonomy, the
caveats about an end to the
uprising and the rejection of
international supervision, Ms.
Sabino said. However, CPPAX
is open to any changes which
might come about through
further negotations, she added.
The Democratic Party position
adopts the Shamir plan, she said.
"We should not articulate an
election plan because the
situation is constantly
changing."
Andrea Barron, who was the
moving force behind Question 5,
the Newton referendum calling
for a Palestinian state, is also a
member of the CPPAX drafting
committee and the New Jewish
Agenda. Ironically, the Middle
East issue is Article 5 of the
Democratic Platform.
Ms. Barron emphasized that
See Showdown page 12
Election
Brewing
By Susan Bloch
BOSTON - Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir's
proposal for Palestinian
elections could bring about his
resignation and throw Israel into
political turmoil.
Although the plan for
elections in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, to be followed by a
period of autonomy, was
overwhelming passed by the
Cabinet on May 14, some
leading members of Mr.
Shamir's Likud Party oppose
the idea.
The full Knesset endorsed the
election plan by a vote of 43-15,
meaning that the majority of the
120-member body didn't vote.
Likud Party members who
oppose the plan chose to be
absent rather than vote against
the government. Leading the
opposition are David Levy,
Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak
Moda'i.
Mr. Levy, a Deputy Prime
Minister, recently met with
Northern District members of
Likud, who passed a resolution
calling for the Prime Minister to
withdraw the election proposal.
Industry and Trade Minister
Sharon has called the plan "a
major calamity." More than 20
Storm
In Likud
Members of Knesset took large
ads in the Israeli press
denouncing the election
proposal. Heading the signators
was Deputy Foreign Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu and other
members of the Cabinet will not
be allowed to vote at the party
meeting, because they have
already voiced their opinion
through the Cabinet vote.
Foreign Minister Moshe
Arens, a Shamir supporter,
expressed profound disapproval
of L.S. Secretary of State James
Baker's speech last week to the
American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC).
Expressing public unhappi-
ness with the content, Mr. Arens
was believed to be privately
dismayed by the timing of Mr.
Baker's speech. Analysts point
out that Mr. Baker's comments
probably moved some Likud
members into the opposition
camp.
In his remarks, Mr. Baker
endorsed the election proposal,
but called on Israel "to lay aside,
once and for all, the unrealistic
vision of a greater Israel;"
foreswear annexation; stop
settlement activity; allow
schools to reopen; and "reach
See Storm page 12