מקורות הווקיזם כאידיאולוגיה של האנטישמיות החדשה

דור ה-Z תומך בחמאס: מקורות הווקיזם כאידיאולוגיה של האנטישמיות החדשה באמריקה

הטבח בעוטף עזה והמלחמה נגד ארגון החמאס הביאו להתפרצות חריגה בעוצמתה של שנאת ישראל ואנטישמיות בארצות הברית. בין המאפיינים החדשים והבולטים של התופעה: רמת העוינות הגבוהה כלפי ישראל, ריבוי תקריות אלימות נגד יהודים, השתתפות גבוהה במחאה של הדור הצעיר (דור המילניום ודור ה-Z) שחלקים גדולים ממנו מסרבים לראות בישראל קורבן של מעשי הזוועה ומצדיקים את פעולת החמאס. מקור תופעות אלה נמצא בזרמים אידיאולוגיים שפשטו בחברה האמריקאית בעשורים האחרונים ואשר מתבססים על תפיסות אידיאולוגיות רדיקליות בנושא אי-שוויון גזעי, מגדרי וחברתי, המושפעות מגישות פוסט-מודרניסטיות בעלות מאפיינים אנטי-ליברליים. למרות היותן שנויות במחלוקת, תפיסות אלה הונחלו במערכת החינוך הציבורית ובמערכת ההשכלה הגבוהה וכיום הן מעצבות את תודעת הדור הצעיר ומשפיעות על עמדתו כלפי הסכסוך הישראלי-פלסטיני ועל יחסו לקהילה היהודית בארה״ב.

מאפייני המחאה האנטי-ישראלית

התפרצות של עוינות ושנאה כלפי ישראל במרחב הציבורי האמריקאי החלה מייד אחרי הטבח של ה-7 באוקטובר. בדומה למחאה אנטי-ישראלית בסבבי הלחימה הקודמים, גם הגל הנוכחי התבטא בשלוש זירות עיקריות: הפגנות במרכזי הערים, הפגנות בקמפוסים של אוניברסיטאות, ועליה חדה בפרסומים אנטי-ישראליים ואנטישמיים ברשתות החברתיות (בדגש על טיקטוק וטוויטר). עם זאת, בגל המחאה הנוכחי ניכרים המאפיינים הבאים שמבדילים אותו מהסבבים הקודמים:

א. הזדהות אידיאולוגית, חד-משמעית ובלתי מתנצלת, של המפגינים עם ארגון החמאס, תוך הצגת הסיסמא לשחרור ״פלסטין מהנהר לים״ כדרישה לגיטימית;

ב. נכונות גבוהה לפעול באלימות נגד יהודים ותומכי ישראל, שלעיתים קרובות הובילה לתקריות אנטישמיות אלימות במרכזי הערים ובקמפוסים;

ג. שתיקה, התעלמות, תגובה מאוחרת או מטושטשת מצד הנהלות האוניברסיטאות ביחס לטבח, ובהמשך גם ביחס לאלימות המפגינים נגד סטודנטים יהודים;

ד. צורת מחאה חדשה של הסרה שיטתית של מודעות חטופים שהפיצו תומכי ישראל;

ה. לצד הובלת הארגונים הפלסטינים והמוסלמיים, בלטה נוכחותם של פעילי קהילות המיעוטים האחרות, כולל של היהודים האנטי-ציונים, בדגש על ארגון Jewish Voices for Peace שיזם אירועים בעלי נראות ציבורית גבוהה (בבניין הקפיטול  בוושינגטון, בגשר מנהטן בניו יורק, ועוד). 

״התיאוריה הביקורתית של גזע״ - רקע

החרפת העוינות האנטי-ישראלית והאנטישמית בארה״ב מקורה בתפיסות אידיאולוגיות רדיקליות המתפשטות בחברה ובמערכת החינוך האמריקאית מזה שני עשורים. הגופים הפרו-פלסטינים, דוגמת SJP, ידעו להתחבר ולנצל את המגמות האלה לטובת קידום האינטרסים של ארגוני הטרור הפלסטינים, אך הם לא אלה שיצרו אותן. מה שעומד בבסיס התמורות האידיאולוגיות הנ״ל הוא אימוץ ויישום מעשי של תפיסות המבוססות על ״התיאוריה הביקורתית של הגזע״ (Critical Race Theory, בהמשך CRT) ועל אידיאולוגיות רדיקליות בנושא מגדר וצדק החברתי במרחב הציבורי האמריקאי, כולל במערכות האמונות על עיצוב התודעה של הדור הצעיר: מערכת השכלה גבוהה ומערכת החינוך הציבורית. מגמות אלה מאפיינות גם את שוק העבודה בארה״ב, כמו גם תחומי עשיה נוספים, אך תחומים אלה לא נכללים במסגרת הניתוח הנכחי.

התיאוריה הביקורתית של הגזע פותחה בארה״ב מאז שנות ה-70 ע״י אנשי אקדמיה ופעילי זכויות אדם, ובמרכזה הטענה כי הגזע איננו תופעה המבוססת על הבדלים ביולוגיים אלא הבנייה חברתית שמושרשת במערכת משפטית ואשר נועדה לשמר מצב של אי-שוויון וחלוקת הכוח הקיימת בארה״ב. לפי CRT, הגזענות אינה מקבץ של דעות קדומות של פרט ביחס לזולתו, אלא חלק בלתי נפרד של מערכת שלטונית שהקים הרוב הלבן, הדומיננטי ובעל הפריבילגיות, כדי לדכא את המיעוט השחור ומיעוטים אחרים. בסוף שנות ה-90 מספר חוקרים אמריקאים מתחו ביקורת על התיאוריה הנ״ל, חשפו את חולשתה המדעית, את היעדר ההוכחות האמפיריות התומכות בה, וכן את סכנותיה הפוטנציאליות, כולל האפשרות שתעודד אנטישמיות. למרות זאת, ״התיאוריה״ המשיכה להתפשט מחוץ לחוגים האקדמיים ופעילי זכויות אדם, וקנתה לה אחיזה במחנה הפרוגרסיבי האמריקאי הממוקם בקצה השמאלי של המפלגה הדמוקרטית.

אחד הפיתוחים של התיאוריה הנ״ל הוא המונח ״הצטלבויות״, intersectionality, שמשמעותו המקורית היא אפקט מצטבר בין צורות אי-שוויון שונות: על בסיס גזע, מגדר, מעמד חברתי ומוגבלויות פיזיות. הגרסה העדכנית של מונח זה כוללת קביעה כי כל ביטויי אי-צדק בעולם קשורים אחד לשני. לפי תפיסה זו, דיכוי העם הפלסטיני והכיבוש הישראלי בשטחים שקולים לגזענות נגד שחורים בארה״ב, לרדיפת אנשי קהילת להט״ב, לפגיעה ואלימות נגד נשים וליתר תופעות הדיכוי בעולם. מכאן הצורך באיחוד המאבקים של כל קבוצות המיעוט כדי ליצור חזית אחידה נגד דיכוי הרוב. בפרפרזה על קריאת הקרב הקומוניסטית, תפיסת ״ההצטלבויות״ קובעת: ״מדוכאי כל העולם, התאחדו״.

השפעת התיאוריות הרדיקליות על החברה האמריקאית

למרות הבסיס המדעי הרעוע והסתירות הפנימיות, התפיסות הנ״ל התגבשו במרוצת השנים לזרם אידיאולוגי עצמתי המצליח להשפיע על השיח הפנים-אמריקאי, ובעשורים האחרונים יצר עימות אידיאולוגי חריף, יש המכנים אותו ״מלחמת תרבות״ של ממש, שקורע ומפלג את החברה. המתחים האידיאולוגיים האלה באו לידי ביטוי עוד בשנות ה-90 סביב המונח ״פוליטיקלי קורקט״, שנועד להגן על המיעוטים מפני הביקורת נגדם, ואשר עבר בהדרגה מעולם האקדמיה לשיח חברתי רחב יותר. במקביל, המבקרים של הסדר הפוליטי והחברתי בארה״ב התמקדו במונח ״פוליטיקה של זהויות״ כדי לערער את הלגיטימציה של המערכת הקיימת, שלטענתם מתחזה לליברלית ואוניברסלית אך למעשה משמרת את האינטרסים של בעלי הכוח הפוליטי והכלכלי ושל הרוב הלבן.

גלגולה הבא של מלחמת התרבות האמריקאית החל עם הופעתה של ״תרבות הביטול״, cancel culture, כחלק מפעולותיה של תנועת ה-MeToo. במהרה ״תרבות הביטול״ הפכה לכלי שימושי של נושאי האידיאולוגיה החדשה במאבקם נגד הרוב הדומיננטי והמדכא. יתרה מזו, ״תרבות הביטול״ סימנה שלב חדש במאבק זה שהפך מעימות בעל אופי אקדמי-תקשורתי למעשי, ותורגם לפעולות חרם, נידוי, ולפגיעה תדמיתית וכלכלית במי שהפכו ליעדי פעולות ״הביטול״. בנוסף, ״תרבות הביטול״ פגעה בחופש הביטוי על-ידי שרטוט גבולות של מותר ואסור בשיח ציבורי. תופעות אלה הגבירו בצורה דרמטית את הקיטוב הפוליטי והחברתי בארה״ב בתחילת העשור הקודם, וזכו לביקורת לא רק מימין המפה הפוליטית אלה גם מנשיא אובמה שהזהיר מהשלכות ״תרבות הביטול״.

למרות הביקורת הגוברת, האידיאולוגיות הרדיקליות המשיכו להתחזק על רקע שורה של אירועים דרמטיים, במיוחד הריגתו של ג׳ורג׳ פלויד ע״י שוטר. בשנים הבאות נרשמה עליה חדה במספר התקריות האלימות במיוחד, כולל ביזה והתנגשויות קשות עם המשטרה. התקריות האלימות האנטישמיות שהתרחשו לאחר 7 באוקטובר תואמות את המגמה הנ״ל ומעידות על מעבר לשלב חדש של המאבק האידיאולוגי, שלב האלימות הפיזית. יצוין כי בשנים אלה השם שהודבק לאידיאולוגיות רדיקליות אלה הוא ״ווק״ (woke, או wokeness, או wokism), שמקורו במאבקה של הקהילה השחורה שביקשה להגביר מודעות, או ערנות, לאי-שוויון וחוסר צדק חברתי (יש לציין כי השימוש במונח ״ווק״ נפוץ בקרב מתנגדי אידיאולוגיה זו, אך נתפס כמילת גנאי על-ידי תומכיה שמעדיפים להגדיר את עצמם כלוחמי שוויון וצדק חברתי). במקביל לעלייה במפלס האלימות, אידיאולוגיה ״ווק״ הצליחה בשנים אלה להגביר את השפעתה ואת מיסודה במערכת החינוך הציבורית ובמוסדות להשכלה גבוהה. 

השפעה על מערכת השכלה גבוהה

האקדמיה האמריקאית תרמה תרומה חשובה לפיתוחן של התפיסות הנ״ל. השפעת ״התיאוריה הקריטית של הגזע״ על השיח האקדמי הכללי ועל הנהלת האוניברסיטאות הלכה וגברה, ותורגמה לצמיחה חסרת תקדים של מסגרות לקידום סטודנטים מכל סוגי קבוצות מיעוט (למעט היהודים). אוניברסיטאות רבות הקימו מחלקות חדשות בשם DEI – ״גיוון, הגינות, והכללה״ (Diversity, equity and inclusion), כדי להגדיל את שיעור הסטודנטים בני המיעוטים ולהקל על שילובם. המחלקות החדשות הפכו לגופים ביורוקרטיים מנופחים בתוך אוניברסיטאות וזכו למעמד חשוב ולתקציבי ענק. עם זאת, התחקירים האחרונים מצביעים על תוצאות צנועות, אם בכלל, של משרדי DEI בהשגת היעדים הנ״ל. יתרה מזו, גוברת הביקורת הציבורית נוכח השפעתם השלילית על חופש הביטוי בקמפוסים, על הפגיעה במצוינות האקדמית, והחשוב מכל, על העמקת הקיטוב החברתי באוניברסיטאות, במקום החיבור והכללה, כפי שהיה מצופה מהם לפעול. אחרי הטבח של ה-7 באוקטובר משרדי DEI לא נקפו אצבע למניעת התקריות האנטישמיות בקמפוסים, זאת משום שהאנטישמיות כלל לא מוכרת על-ידם כמעשה דיכוי או אפליה. לא מין הנמנע כי אופן התגובה השערורייתי של הנהלות האוניברסיטאות על הטבח בעוטף עזה נבע מהסתמכותן היתרה על משרדי DEI בסוגיות חברתיות, שכאמור כלל לא הכירו באפשרות שישראל או היהודים ״זכאים״ למעמד של קרבן לדיכוי. 

השפעה על מערכת החינוך הציבורית

המצב במערכת החינוך הציבורית מורכב עוד יותר. מאז תחילת העשור מצטברות העדויות על הוראת התפיסות הפרוגרסיביות מדי של גזע, מגדר וצדק חברתי, על בסיסן של CRT ואידיאולוגיות רדיקליות אחרות בבתי הספר הציבוריים בארה״ב. הורי התלמידים הלינו על תוכני הלימוד הפרוגרסיביים והשנויים במחלקות, כגון האשמת הרוב הלבן בגזענות בארה״ב או הרצאות חודרניות בנושא זהות מינית. בהמשך, קבוצות הורים החלו להתארגן כדי להביא לביטול הוראת CRT בבתי ספר, והנושא עלה לכותרות במדינות רבות. באחד המחוזות של וירג׳יניה העימות בין הורים לבתי ספר אף התגלגל לפתחו של בית משפט והסתיים במאסרו של אחד ההורים המוחים. במגרש הפוליטי הסוגייה הפכה לאחד המוקדים הקשים יותר של העימות הבין-מפלגתי: המושלים במדינות שמרניות ניסו לאסור על לימוד התכנים הנ״ל; הנשיא טרמפ פרסם בשלהי כהונתו צו נשיאותי על ״Combatting race and sex stereotyping״ ואסר על מוסדרות פדרליים לקדם דעות המבוססות על CRT או לממן פעולות שמעודדות אותן. 

הנשיא ביידן ביטל את הצו הנ״ל ביום הראשון לכהונתו והעניק לאיגודי המורים תמיכה מוחלטת בקביעת תוכניות לימוד בבתי ספר (יש לזכור כי איגודי המורים הם בסיס תמיכה קבוע של המועמדים הדמוקרטיים; איגודי המורים הגדולים בארה״ב היו בין הראשונים להודיע על תמיכתם בכהונתו השנייה של ביידן בחודש אפריל). כתוצאה מכך, לימוד תכני CRT בבתי ספר חלחל למערכות חינוך ברוב מדינות ארה״ב, למעט מספר מדינות שמרניות כגון פלורידה ואריזונה. בתחילת 2023 מכון מחקר אמריקאי Manhattan Institute  פרסם תוצאות מחקר המצביעות על כך שרוב הצעירים בגיליי 18-20 למדו מושגים הקשורים ל-CRT ולאידיאולוגיה רדיקלית של מגדר במסגרת בתי ספר ציבוריים. כצפוי, ההורים האמריקאים מצביעים ברגליים: בשש השנים האחרונות חלה עליה של 50%  בהיקף הילדים שלומדים מהבית וירידה של 4% במספר התלמידים במערכת החינוך הציבורית. תהליך של נטישת מערכת חינוך ציבורית שהחל בתקופת קורונה ממשיך כעת בשל התכנים הרדיקליים וסכנת האינדוקטרינציה שמדאיגה חלק גדול מהציבור. יצוין כי החוגים הרפובליקאים כבר עמלים על יוזמות חקיקה חדשות שנועדו להקל על הורים המעוניינים להעביר את ילדיהם מבתי ספר ציבוריים, הנשלטים על-ידי איגודי המורים, לבתי ספר פרטיים או עצמאיים. 

אנטי-ציונות ואנטישמיות של האידיאולוגיה החדשה 

בשנים האחרונות הופיעו דיווחים על הכנסת תכנים אנטי-ציוניים ואנטי-ישראליים במספר בתי ספר ציבוריים, כחלק מלימוד התיאוריות הרדיקליות הנ״ל. יצוין כי אחרי ה-7 באוקטובר מורים יהודים דיווחו על יחס עוין מצד תלמידיהם, ובמקרה אחד תלמידי בי״ס תיכון בניו יורק אף ניסו לתקוף פיזית מורה ממוצא יהודי שפרסמה תמונה על השתתפותה בהפגנה פרו-ישראלית. אף שממדי האלימות האנטישמית בבתי הספר עדיין קטנים יחסית להיקף התופעה בקמפוסים, המגמה ברורה. עוינות זו נובעת מאידיאולוגיה של ״ווק״ הרואה בישראל מדינת לא לגיטימית ומזהה את היהודים עם הרוב הלבן בעל הפריבילגיות. אידיאולוגיה של ״ווק״ לא רק הופכת אנטי-ציונות לכלי לניגוח פוליטי, אלא שוללת כל אפשרות שישראל או יהודים יכולים להיות קורבן להפליה ורדיפה, ובכך, הלכה למעשה, עושה דה-הומניזציה של היהודים. 

בכירים בארגונים יהודים מובילים, כגון ADL, זיהו בעוד מועד את הפוטנציאל ההרסני של התפיסות המעוותות הנ״ל, אך אזהרותיהם לא נקלטו. יתרה מזו, ארגונים יהודים פרוגרסיביים התגייסו במלוא כוחם לתמוך ולקדם את התפיסות הנ״ל, מתוך ראית עולם אידיאליסטית, אך תוך התעלמות מעמדות אנטי-ישראליות ואנטישמיות של תנועת ה״ווק״. אותם גורמים פרוגרסיביים גילו, לתדהמתם, כי אחרי ה-7 באוקטובר אף אחד מבני בריתם בתנועות אלה לא התייצב לצידם, או למצער גינה את האכזריות הבלתי אנושית של החמאס. כפי שהגדיר זאת פרשן והוגה דעות אמריקאי יהודי, ברט סטיבנס, באידיאולוגיה של ״ווק״ יש את כל המרכיבים שאמורים לעורר חשד אצל כל יהודי: האמונה שתכונות גזע קובעות את ערכו המוסרי של בן-אדם; נטייה ברורה לאנטישמית; חשיבה טוטליטרית. בעת המשבר הקשה ביותר של העם היהודי ושל מדינת ישראל מאז השואה, הקהילה היהודית האמריקאית גילתה כי מאמציה לבנות ברית עם המחנה הפרוגרסיבי העלו חרס וכי היא נותרה בודדה מול גל אנטישמיות חסר תקדים. בשבועות האחרונים מתחזקת הדרישה לחשבון נפש מצד החוגים הפרוגרסיביים של הקהילה היהודית, אך מוקדם עדיין לקבוע את תוצאותיו, במיוחד לאור העובדה שלא מעט אנשים הלכו רחוק מדיי בניסיונם להפוך לחלק מתנועת ״ווק״.

A new wave of Islamic terrorism in France and its impact on French politics and society

In the last two months, France has been coping with a new wave of violence that originates from ongoing Islamic radicalization. The French government's response, which was hesitant and inconsistent, increased public anger and strengthened the far-right parties. Mass demonstrations by Hamas supporters turned into anti-Semitic violence, but the attempt to present a united front in the fight against anti-Semitism was met with an indecisive position of President Macron and the refusal of the Left to condemn Hamas. Internal considerations influence President Macron's position regarding the war in Gaza in his attempt to calm the Muslim immigrant neighborhoods and prevent escalation. The trends above create a new political dynamic that requires re-examination and policy adjustments ahead of future challenges.

Since the beginning of October 2023, France has once again faced a wave of violent incidents against the background of Islamic radicalization in the country. On October 13, a young man of Chechen Muslim origin murdered a literature teacher in the city of Arras in northern France, precisely three years after a similar attack that shocked the country. On December 2, a young man of Iranian origin murdered a tourist in the center of Paris to "avenge the death of Muslims from Gaza to Afghanistan." The attackers had been under surveillance for suspected Islamic radicalization and were marked as a threat but still managed to strike. Government representatives claimed that one of the attackers suffered from psychiatric problems, which was seen by the public as further proof of the government's incompetence. However, what angered the French citizens more than the two attacks above was a violent event that took place in the town of Crépol in the south of France on November 18 during a teenagers' party. About ten young men of Muslim descent from the nearby town, armed with cold weapons, broke into the party, shouted that they intended "to kill all the whites", brutally attacked the participants, and murdered a 16-year-old boy.

The racist and brutal nature of the event, which took place in an agricultural area in the French periphery that is less exposed to the threats of Islamization, was aggravated by another factor that angered the public: the government's response. The law enforcement authorities delayed the publication of the names of the suspects in an attempt to prevent the disclosure of their Muslim origins. The government even tried to ban demonstrations of sympathy with the murdered teenager, explaining that it was an initiative of the radical right groups and a danger to public order. For many, it looked like a bias and a double standard. Everyone here remembers the riots across France in June 2023, after the death of a young Muslim man killed as a result of disobeying police officers and the government's helplessness in the face of rioters who vandalized public property, attacked police, and terrorized residents. Instead of focusing on Islamic radicalization, the French government continues to divert the discussion to the dangers of the "radical right" - a threat that, in the eyes of the majority of the public, is seen as irrelevant.

Caricature in Charlie Hebdo: "The art of living. To end the party with stabbing, isn't it the best proof of integration into the French boobery!"

The French public knows what the real dangers are. According to one of the latest surveys, the absolute majority of the country's citizens - 87% - fear a civil war scenario in France as a result of a loss of control due to continued immigration and Islamic radicalization. The phrase "civil war" stars in the public discourse and comes from all ends of the political spectrum in the country, including the interior Minister in the previous government of President Macron, whose warnings on the subject were recently published. While the representatives of the extreme right, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour, express the views of the concerned citizens, President Macron and his government seem at a loss, unable to rise to the magnitude of the hour.

Since he entered the Elysee Palace 6 years ago, Macron has not been able to present a clear and determined policy on the issues of immigration and radical Islam in France. His efforts have been focused on trying to maintain quiet in the "suburbs" and "popular towns," washed-up terms for the places of residence of the Muslim immigrant communities. Although Macron was able to overcome protests of an economic-social nature (the "yellow vests," strikes against pension reform) and was efficient in managing the coronavirus crisis thanks to his skills as an economist and manager, he showed weakness every time he had to deal with the crisis of immigration and radicalization, including the one that is happening now.

The French President, who usually cultivates his image in the media, has disappeared from the public discourse surrounding the incident in Crépol and the recent terrorist attacks. Instead of taking the reins, he let the Minister of the Interior, Gerard Darmanin, and the government spokesman, Olivier Véran, manage the media and public messaging. The President was also absent from an event of great national importance - a demonstration of solidarity with the Jewish community and against anti-Semitism initiated by the President of the Senate and the President of the French Legislative Assembly. The event took place against the backdrop of a sharp increase in anti-Semitism in France following the massacre in Israel (about 1,600 anti-Semitic incidents in the last month and a half, compared to 450 in the entire year of 2022). His non-participation in the demonstration harmed the organizers' attempt to create a unified national front in the fight against anti-Semitism and aided the efforts of the extreme Left to present the event as biased and controversial. So much so that the leader of the extreme left party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who refuses to condemn Hamas, derives most of his electoral support from the Muslim community in France, and who himself boycotted the solidarity demonstration, complimented President Macron for not participating in it. It seems that Macron is walking a tightrope between his desire not to anger the suburbs too much and to be clear about his support for Israel and the security of the French Jewish community.

The President's absence from the demonstration damaged his image and helped his primary opponent, the leader of the right-wing party "Rassemblement Nationale" Marine Le Pen, gain legitimacy among the Jewish community. From the first days of the war in Gaza, Marine Le Pen expressed solidarity with Israel's struggle against Hamas and announced her participation in the demonstration. Government representatives declared she was not welcome to join the rally, but their position led to the opposite result. A few influential public figures, Jewish and pro-Israel, praised Le Pen for joining the demonstration, contributing to her efforts to gain broad public legitimacy. According to the latest public opinion polls, Marine Le Pen is seen as the second favorite political personality in France (the first is former prime Minister Edouard Philippe, a possible candidate for the presidency in 2027), and her party leads by a considerable margin against the ruling party ahead of the European Parliament elections next year.

Balancing opposing interests results in an inconsistent position in French foreign policy. After the October 7 massacre, the French President expressed support for Israel's right to self-defense. However, he was not among the first leaders to visit Israel in solidarity. On October 24, Macron visited the region and met with the Prime Minister of Israel, the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and the King of Jordan. During the visit, Macron surprised many, including his Foreign Ministry, when he announced a French initiative to establish an international coalition against Hamas, similar to the coalition against ISIS. The initiative, a complete improvisation of President Macron, was quickly dropped and replaced by the opposite position. Two weeks after he visited Israel, in a televised interview, the French President called on Israel to immediately stop the murder of innocents in Gaza. At the COP28 conference in Dubai, he even claimed that eliminating Hamas is not an achievable goal and "could take ten years." Contradictory statements by the President aside, France focuses its primary efforts on providing humanitarian aid. On November 9, Paris convened an international conference to reconstruct Gaza, in which the countries pledged to create a one billion dollar aid fund. A few weeks ago, France sent a mobile hospital aboard a helicopter carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean and is now working to establish a field hospital south of the Gaza Strip.

It would not be an exaggeration to claim that President Macron looks at the Middle East through the prism of the explosive social situation in his country. As a result, he prefers to portray himself as someone who works for an immediate ceasefire and multiplies efforts in providing humanitarian aid to the Gaza population while distancing himself from Israel. It seems that, in his opinion, this position will help him not to be perceived as a collaborator of Israel in the eyes of the Muslim population in his country. The effectiveness of this policy is questionable, but it looks like this is the kind of advice Macron receives from his close confidants, such as the famous comedian of Moroccan origin, Yassin Belattar, who helps him, as reported in the press, to understand the prevailing mood in the suburbs.

The recent events reveal the French government's strategy for dealing with social tensions - balancing opposing interests to prevent escalation and slide into violence. This balancing act is a difficult task in a country with the largest Muslim population (about 7 million people) and the largest Jewish community in Europe (about 450 thousand people) when the security of the Jewish community and even its continued existence in France are at stake. Beyond the fate of the Jewish community, Islamic radicalization undermines the French way of living and the fundamental values of the country, first and foremost, its famous concept of secularism (laïcité). It also produces a political dynamic of social polarization and the almost inevitable strengthening of Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour, classified as extreme right, even though their positions are gaining increasing public support. Due to its central position in Europe, political and social developments in France will have effects throughout the continent and beyond.

The Israeli strategy for managing its relations with France should consider the abovementioned trends. We must strengthen bilateral cooperation with France, whose leaders appreciate Israel's technological excellence. It is crucial to support the efforts of the French government to maintain the safety of the Jewish community and fight anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism associated today with the extreme Left's alliance with radical Islam. It is also essential to be attentive to the transformations taking place in the French right-wing camp, to its position on the fight against anti-Semitism and support for Israel, and the transformation of Marine Le Pen's party into a legitimate player on the political field. These issues require new thinking and policy adjustments ahead of looming challenges.

Hatred of Israel and the new antisemitism through the lens of ideological transformations in American society and the education system

The massacre in Israel's South and the war against Hamas led to an extreme outbreak of hatred of Israel and antisemitism in many Western countries; the United States was no exception. Among the new and prominent characteristics of this phenomenon are the high level of hostility towards Israel, the number of violent incidents against Jews, and the high level of participation in the protests of the young generation (millennials and generation Z), large parts of which refuse to see Israel as a victim of atrocities and overtly justify the actions of Hamas. The source of these phenomena is found in ideological currents that have spread in American society in recent decades, based on radical ideological concepts on race, gender, and social inequality and influenced by a postmodernist anti-liberal approach. Despite their controversiality, these concepts were introduced into the public education and higher education systems; today, they shape the younger generation's mindset and influence their attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Jewish community in America.

The characteristics of the current anti-Israel protests

An outbreak of hostility and hatred towards Israel began immediately after the October 7 massacre. Similar to anti-Israel protests in the previous rounds of fighting, the current wave manifested itself in three main arenas: marches in city centers, demonstrations on university campuses, and a sharp increase in anti-Israeli and antisemitic publications on social media (particularly on TikTok and Twitter). However, the following characteristics distinguish the current wave of protests from the previous:

1. An unequivocal and unapologetic ideological identification of the protesters with Hamas terrorists, including with the organization's slogan "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" seen as a legitimate demand;

2. Determination of the protesters to act violently against Jews and supporters of Israel, which often led to violent antisemitic incidents in city centers and on campuses;

3. Lack of, or a delayed and vague response on the part of the university administrations concerning the massacre and the violence of the protesters against Jewish students;

4. A new form of protest, systematic removal of pictures with Israeli hostages' information. 

5. Alongside Palestinian and Muslim organizations, participation of other minority groups in protests, including the anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace (which initiated events with high public visibility at the Capitol in D.C., on the Manhattan Bridge in New York, etc.).

"The Critical Race Theory" - background

The worsening of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hostility in the U.S. originates from radical ideological concepts that have been spreading in American society and the education system for two decades. The pro-Palestinian bodies, such as SJP, knew how to take advantage of these trends to promote the interests of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, but they were not the ones who created them. The source of these ideological transformations is the adoption and practical application of concepts based on "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) and radical ideologies regarding gender and social justice by institutions responsible for shaping the views and beliefs of the younger generation, namely the higher education system and the public education system. These trends are also present in other domains of public life but are not part of the current analysis.

The Critical Race Theory has been developed since the 1970s by academics and human rights activists. At its center is the claim that race is not a phenomenon based on biological differences but a social construction rooted in the legal system and intended to preserve a state of inequality and power distribution in the USA. According to CRT, racism is not a set of individual prejudices but an integral part of a governmental system established by the white, dominant, and privileged majority to oppress the black minority and other minorities. In the late 1990s, several American researchers criticized this theory, exposing its scientific weakness, the lack of empirical evidence supporting it, as well as its potential dangers, including the possibility that it would encourage antisemitism. Despite this, the "theory" spread beyond human rights activists and academic circles and gained a foothold in the American progressive camp.

One of the offshoots of the CRT is the term "intersectionality," whose original meaning is a cumulative effect of different forms of inequality based on race, gender, social status, and physical disabilities. The current version of this term includes a claim that all expressions of injustice in the world are related. According to this view, the oppression of the Palestinian people and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories are equivalent to racism against blacks in the USA, the persecution of members of the LGBT community, violence against women, and other phenomena of oppression. Hence, the need to unify the struggles of all minority groups to create a united front against the majority's oppression. Paraphrasing the communist battle cry,  the slogan for intersectionality acolytes could be: "Oppressed of the whole world, unite."

The influence of radical theories on American society

Despite shaky scientific basis and internal contradictions, the concepts mentioned above have formed over the years into a powerful ideological current that impacts the public discourse and, in recent decades, has created a sharp ideological conflict, some call it a full-blown "culture war," which tears and divides the society. These ideological tensions rose as early as the 1990s around the term "political correctness," intended to protect minorities from criticism against them; it gradually moved from the academic world to a broader social discourse. At the same time, the critics of the political and social order in the USA focused on the term "identity politics" to undermine the legitimacy of the existing system, which they claimed, while pretending to be liberal and universal, preserves the interests of the white majority and those with political and economic power.

The next incarnation of the American culture war began with the appearance of the "cancel culture" as part of the actions of the MeToo movement. Soon, the "cancel culture" became a valuable tool for the bearers of the new ideology in their struggle against the "dominant and oppressive majority." Furthermore, the "cancel culture" marked a new phase in this struggle that turned from a theoretical battle into a real-life conflict, with boycotts and social ostracism campaigns, causing reputational and financial damage to those who became the targets of these "cancel" actions. In addition, the "cancel culture" harmed freedom of expression by drawing clear boundaries between what is allowed and what is not in public discourse. These phenomena dramatically increased the political and social polarization in the U.S. at the beginning of the previous decade. They were criticized not only by the political right but also by President Obama, who warned of the consequences of the "cancel culture."

Despite the growing criticism, the radical ideologies continued to strengthen against the background of a series of dramatic events, especially the killing of George Floyd by a police officer. In the following years, there was a sharp increase in the number of particularly violent incidents, including looting and severe clashes with the police. The violent antisemitic incidents that occurred after October 7 are consistent with the trend above and indicate a transition to a new phase of ideological struggle, the phase of physical violence. It should be noted that today, the name affixed to these radical ideologies is "woke" (woke, or wokeness, or wokism), which originated in the struggle of the black community that sought to increase awareness of inequality and social injustice (the use of the term "woke" is common among opponents of this ideology, but perceived as a derogatory by its supporters who prefer to define themselves as fighters for equality and social justice). At the same time, as the level of violence escalated during these years, the "woke" ideology succeeded in increasing its influence and institutionalization in the public education system and higher education institutions.

Impact on the higher education system

The academic community contributed to developing the radical theories of race, gender, and social justice. The influence of the CRT on the general academic discourse and the universities' administrations was growing significantly. It translated into an unprecedented expansion of frameworks for the advancement of students from all types of minority groups (except the Jews). Many universities have established new departments called DEI - "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" to increase the proportion of minority students and facilitate their integration. The new departments turned into excessive bureaucratic bodies gaining status and sizable budgets. However, the latest journalist investigations indicate modest results, if any, of the DEI offices achieving their stated goals.

Furthermore, there are growing concerns about DEI's negative impact on freedom of expression on campuses, the damage to academic excellence, and, most importantly, the deepening of social polarization in universities instead of inclusion, contrary to what was expected from them. After the October 7 massacre, the DEI offices did not lift a finger to prevent the antisemitic incidents on the campuses since they do not recognize antisemitism as an act of oppression or discrimination. There is a possibility that the scandalous way the university administrations reacted to the massacre in Israel was due to their excessive reliance on the DEI offices, which, as mentioned, did not recognize the possibility that Israel or the Jews could qualify as victims of oppression.

Impact on the public education system

The situation in the public education system is even more complex. Since the beginning of the decade, evidence has been accumulating about the teaching of the radical concepts of race, gender, and social justice based on CRT and other radical ideologies in U.S. public schools. The students' parents complained about the radical study content in the classes, such as blaming the white majority for racism in the U.S. or intrusive lectures on sexual identity. Later, parent groups began to self-organize to ban CRT teaching in schools, and the issue made headlines in many states. In one of the districts of Virginia, the conflict between parents and schools ended up in court and the imprisonment of one of the protesting parents. The issue became highly partisan and politicized. Governors of several conservative states tried to ban the study of CRT and other radical ideologies. At the end of his term, President Trump issued a presidential order on "Combating race and sex stereotyping" and prohibited federal agencies from promoting opinions based on CRT or funding actions that encourage them.

However, President Biden rescinded this order on the first day of his term and fully supported the teachers' unions in determining school curricula (it should be noted that the teachers' unions are a solid support base for the Democratic candidates; major teachers' unions were among the first to announce their support for the second term of Biden in April 2023). As a result, teaching CRT content in schools has permeated education systems in most U.S. states, except a few conservative states such as Florida and Arizona. In early 2023, the Manhattan Institute published research results indicating that the majority of young people aged 18-20 have learned concepts related to CRT and radical gender ideology in public schools. As expected, American parents are voting with their feet. In the last six years, there has been a 50% increase in the number of home-schooled children and a 4% drop in the number of students in the public education system. The process of abandoning a public education system that began during COVID-19 continues now due to the radical content and the danger of indoctrination that worries a large part of the public. As a result, Republican activists are already working on new legislative initiatives to make it easier for parents who wish to transfer their children from public schools controlled by the teachers' unions to private or independent schools.

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism of the new ideology

In recent years, reports have appeared about the introduction of anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli content in several public schools as part of the study of CRT and other radical theories. Moreover, after October 7, Jewish teachers reported hostile behavior from their students. In one case, high school students in New York even tried to physically attack a teacher of Jewish origin who posted a photo of her participation in a pro-Israel rally. Although the dimensions of anti-Semitic violence in schools are still relatively small compared to the scope of the phenomenon on campuses, the trend is clear. This hostility stems from the "woke" ideology, which sees Israel as an illegitimate state and identifies Jews with the privileged white majority. "Woke" ideology is not only aggressively anti-Zionist; it denies any possibility that Israel or Jews can be a victim of discrimination and persecution, and thus, in practice, dehumanizes them.

Book by David Bernstein, published in 2022

Senior officials in leading Jewish organizations, such as ADL, recognized the destructive potential of these distorted views as early as 2018, but their warnings did not receive due attention. Furthermore, progressive Jewish organizations, driven by idealism, wholeheartedly accepted "woke" ideology while ignoring its anti-Israel and antisemitic elements. These Jewish organizations discovered, to their astonishment, that after the October 7 massacre, none of their allies in these movements stood by their side and condemned the inhuman cruelty of Hamas. As Bret Stevens defined it, the ideology of "woke" has all the elements that should terrify any Jew: the belief that racial characteristics determine a person's moral worth, a habit of descending to antisemitism, and a quasi-totalitarian mindset. Thus, during the worst crisis for the Jewish people and the State of Israel since the Holocaust, the American Jewish community discovered that its efforts to build an alliance with the progressive camp had failed and that it was left alone in the face of an unprecedented wave of antisemitism. In recent weeks, the demand for a reckoning on the part of the progressive circles of the Jewish community has been growing more robust. However, it is still too early to determine its results, mainly because quite a few people have gone too far in their attempt to become part of the "woke" movement.

Summary

The above processes shape the face of American society and its future generations. Those are profound internal developments influenced by demographic, economic, cultural, and political trends. The U.S. is Israel's most important ally, and naturally, these developments are worrying, but Israel cannot influence them. However, it must be remembered that a strong and stable Israel is the primary source of strength for all Jewish communities worldwide. Israel can help Diaspora Jews face the challenges of the new antisemitism by a firm adherence to its fundamental commitments as the only state of the Jewish people: a persistent commitment to the security of its citizens, to the Law of Return and aliyah, and to maintaining its Jewish and democratic character.

Artificial Intelligence and its regulation, a perspective from Israel

Speaking at Tel Aviv University last June, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, made two headlines that caught the attention of the Israeli media. Addressing the risks of AI development, he emphasized the need to take the existential threats of AI seriously by creating an international regulatory body to ensure responsible use of it by all countries, similar to nuclear power control organizations. Complimenting the audience, Altman expressed his confidence that Israel's tech ecosystem will play a "huge role" in the artificial intelligence revolution, which will transform the world. "There are two things I have observed that are particular about Israel: the first is talent density, and the second is the relentlessness, drive, and ambition of Israeli entrepreneurs," said Altman at the event. 

There are good reasons for Altman's words of appreciation. Israel's Artificial Intelligence sector is growing fast and places it among the leading countries in the field. According to the AI Index Report 2022 of Stanford University, Israel ranks fifth in the Relative AI Skill Penetration rate in 2015-2021 and fourth in private investment in AI in 2021, with $2.4 billion. In absolute terms, 2200 companies in the country use Artificial Intelligence, as reported Israel Innovation Authority in May. In the last months, there was a sharp increase in Israel's start-ups entering the field of generative AI. Israeli companies use AI in cyber, fintech, agrotech, and organization software. One of the critical goals of Israel's Innovation Authority and AI experts is the development of the "National LLM," a language model that will function in Hebrew and Arabic. A significant presence of big technology companies and highly-ranked academic institutions provides a solid platform for international discussions on the future of AI, like the last conference, "Data Sciences," that attracted professionals from all over the globe.

However, the central message of OpenAI leaders to the Tel-Aviv audience and the global public opinion is a need to handle the future development of Artificial Intelligence with due caution. Sam Altman and OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever compare AI's negative potential to nuclear energy, which may sound like a stern warning. In his congressional testimony in May, Altman suggested a regulatory body to oversee the licensing and use of AI "above a certain threshold." Regarding the international community, he believes a new international organization should regulate the development and use of Artificial Intelligence in the way the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls nuclear power. 

As someone involved in the discussions on AI regulation a few years ago, seeing the CEO of OpenAI urging such regulation was encouraging. Sam Altman is not the first technology leader to express concern about the risks of AI - Ilon Musk did it as early as 2014, contemplating the need for national and international regulation publicly. Sam Altman takes this regulatory cause one step further. His recent road shows to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East constitute an effort to generate a more informed discussion of AI risks among decision-makers. This effort is a welcome initiative. 

However, we should remember that AI regulation is not a new topic for international organizations and national governments. Multiple international bodies, including UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and OECD, delved into the issue, hoping to forge a broad consensus among the countries. But were they successful in finding global consensus? The debates on AI regulation started three years before Chat GPT's launch, yet those respected bodies still try to find common ground or propose a regulatory mechanism. The differences between approaches to AI regulation precluded any reasonable agreement between all member states. Concerns for human rights and privacy were at the center of the European approach to AI regulation; the United States advocated for a market-driven approach and expressed fear of over-regulation stifling innovation, while China stood up for complete government control of Artificial Intelligence. Based on observation of the current state of affairs of the UN system, it is impossible to expect global consensus on AI. The only international organization able to reach an agreement among its members is the European Union, which plans to finalize the AI Act by the beginning of 2024. This example provides an important lesson on AI regulation - reaching a consensus among like-minded countries is the right way to proceed. 

Another vital lesson is the direct responsibility of the government to provide the regulatory framework and the equally unquestionable need to hold an open dialogue with the industry and civil society. Israel's government, for example, consulted with leading entities in the hi-tech sector and with technology experts and then published a draft policy on AI regulation in November 2022 for public comment.

One last lesson from the field of diplomacy: to get a consensus, we must find a compromise. Like others before him, Sam Altman discovered in his European tour that the European approach is more preventative and potentially more harmful to innovation than the American position. However, as Sam Altman did, once we realize the regulation is crucial, we can and should find a middle ground among like-minded countries. The OECD could be the best platform as it brings countries from Europe, Asia, and the Americas under the same roof who share common values but foster different cultural perspectives and traditions. Once achieved, this consensus would become a basis for an agreement on AI regulation open for other countries to join. 

What could this consensus look like? In Israel, the emerging approach is that of a "soft" regulation, as explained in the draft policy papers prepared by the Israel Innovation Authority. Instead of a comprehensive legislation framework, the various regulators working in different specializations examine the need to promote concrete regulation while maintaining a uniform government policy. In addition, the regulation will be carried out in appropriate cases using advanced regulatory tools such as voluntary standardization and self-regulation. Thus, Israel's approach combines elements of the European (uniform government policy) and the American position (voluntary steps and self-regulation). The policy paper draft also suggests using a modular format and regulatory experimentation tools (such as "sandboxes") and the public's participation in the deliberation process.

A doomsday scenario of AI technologies is probably exaggerated, but the need for its regulation is not. Given the current pace of AI development, procrastination could prove too dangerous. 

Between Chernobyl and Covid-19, Dr. Alla Shapiro calls for reflection

Book review for “Doctor on Call: Chernobyl responder, Jewish refugee, radiation expert”, by Dr. Alla Shapiro. Mandel Vilar Press, 2021.

  The cover illustration of the "Doctor on Call: Chernobyl responder, Jewish refugee, radiation expert", includes two distinct images. In the bottom image, we see the 4th reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear station and the abandoned buildings of Pripyat, the closest town to Chernobyl power station that housed its employees before the explosion. The top picture is a peaceful view of the American capital dominated by the iconic Washington Monument. Young pediatrician Alla Shapiro from the Hematology Unit of the Kiev Children Hospital couldn't have imagined on the morning of April 26, 1986, that her life would irreversibly change and the rest of it will revolve around those two places: Washington, D.C. and Chernobyl, Ukraine. Washington will become her second home after she leaves the turbulent Kiev of the 1980s; the Chernobyl chapter of her life will manifest itself throughout her work as a radiation expert, and as a patient of radiation-induced cancer, a sinister reminder from April 1986.

          With breathtaking simplicity and sincerity Dr. Shapiro unfolds her odyssey from her native city, Kiev, which began when she was called to treat the children evacuated from the town of Pripyat in the immediate aftermath of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear station. The journey starts more than 30 years ago in the Soviet Union, still a superpower, whose imminent collapse is not being envisaged even by the most audacious Sovietologists. Dr. Shapiro’s scrupulous description of the first days and weeks after the disaster reconstructs the harsh realities of the Soviet Union after the explosion. In the first part of the book, we see dreadful images of the ongoing tragedy, with Chernobyl patients overcrowding Kiev hospitals, and medical personnel’s heroic but all too often hopeless efforts to help them. These pictures are intertwined with the author's own desperate and at times futile struggle to keep her own family safe. The scene of Alla Shapiro detecting radiation on the stuffed toy animals of her daughter, or the story of author’s mother Nelly, a scientist herself, who tried to bring her daughter home-made “radiation clean” food from Kiev to Narodichi, are simply unforgettable.

  But beyond the pictures of the unfolding tragedy in the country caught by an absolute surprise and emergency unpreparedness, Dr. Shapiro makes her vigorous diagnosis on the reasons for the failure of the first response to the Chernobyl disaster. The Kiev pediatrician, who out of necessity became a first responder in the unprecedented nuclear catastrophe, reveals how the Soviet policy of secrecy, deliberate hiding of scientific information and absence of transparent communication with the population severely aggravated the crisis causing it to lose control. This simple but powerful insight will forcefully resonate again in the last part of the book that deals with critical preparedness and handling of the world crisis of our time, the Covid-19 pandemic. 

  One of the more powerful passages about the Soviet “web of lies and deceit” in dealing with the Chernobyl disaster, in my eyes, appears in the chapter named “A Radioactive fallacy”.  During her deployments as the head of the medical team to the radiation-contaminated areas, she became fully aware of the insuperable contradiction between the facts, data, scientific analysis, and the directives of the Soviet government whose interest was to downplay the danger and hide the real situation from its own citizens. As a doctor, she was forced to be part of this mechanism she aptly calls “the ladder of lies'', under the threat of losing her job forever.

  As a result, total disappointment with the Soviet system, even a sense of betrayal, felt by Dr. Shapiro and millions of her fellow citizens was one of the main psychological fallouts of Chernobyl. This fresh trauma coincided for her and her family with another wound inflicted on the Jews of the Soviet Union. The second part of the book opens with Dr. Shapiro’s recollection of her and her family’s experience with the “established fact of life” in the Soviet Union, namely the persecution of the Jewish people. Decades before the Chernobyl disaster, the Jewish population of the USSR had already learnt first-hand about the falsehoods of the Soviet propaganda, the insurmountable gap between the communist slogans of brotherhood of nations and the despairing reality of discrimination and antisemitism in USSR. Dr. Shapiro is not trying to answer the question why this happened. She only describes the facts of the discrimination and its psychological impact. But following this endless story of humiliation and prejudice, we, as readers, cannot resist asking those questions. How did it happen that a country who fought and defeated Nazi Germany ended up with the state-supported antisemitism of its own? Why the Jews were systematically persecuted and discriminated against since Joseph Stalin’s rule and almost till the final collapse of the Soviet Union? And what comparisons and lessons can we draw from the Soviet model of antisemitism today, in the year 2021, when physical violence against Jews and all other types of antisemitism, from conspiracy theories to digitally promulgated slanders, are on the rise in Europe, US and in the Middle East? 

          The Chernobyl tragedy and the trauma of antisemitism would be a sufficiently hard life experience for one person, but in 1989 Alla Shapiro was up for another challenge: immigration. The hardships of her family exodus from the Soviet Union, the time they spent in the temporary refugee camp in Italy and the pains of adapting to a new life in the United States will be familiar to any person who underwent immigration. Those of us who had this experience would agree that the life of an immigrant oscillates between periods of despair and uncertainty with time of accomplishments and success, mingled with amusing moments of confusion and silly mistakes. Alla Shapiro eagerly shares with us such comic and incredible situations, like hitchhiking in the car of the Italian movie star Michele Placido or her unsuccessful “escape” from the highway police on Wisconsin Avenue. The immigrant life, with all its ups and downs, looks suddenly less stressful, less tragic, more manageable experience; it also has a logic of gradual adjustment, of settling down, of taking root, particularly in the country that is built on immigration ethos. It is by all accounts a more bearable challenge than a nuclear disaster or antisemitism. 

  With determination and resolve, Alla Shapiro had succeeded to overcome the language barrier, to pass recertification exams and to establish her medical credentials in America, opening for her a career path in pediatric oncology. But very soon her Chernobyl experience was required by the United States government and U.S. defense agencies involved in research on anti-radiation drugs. She joined a fellowship at the National Health Institute, was invited to speak at scientific conferences, and at the same time volunteered to work with children of Chernobyl suffering from different types of cancer.  Subsequently Dr. Shapiro became deeply involved in research and development of drugs to be used in radiological or nuclear incidents. And one day she went to Kiev, as representative of the FDA’s Office of Counterterrorism, to speak at the international conference dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. During her flight she heard from another passenger about the new “hot” tourist destination in Ukraine, the ghost town of Pripyat... But enough with spoilers, I will leave it for you to discover if Alla Shapiro eventually came back to Chernobyl. 

  This visit to Kiev, 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, could probably be an ideal ending for a book of fiction. But the life of Alla Shapiro had one more dramatic twist of fate. A sinister personal reminder from Chernobyl. While working on the development of the medications that can help fight radiation, she was herself diagnosed with cancer - radiation-induced cancer. 25 years after the explosion she was again in the oncological department, this time as a patient. After her first chemotherapy treatment session she starts to write this book. 

  The readers will like “Doctor on call” for different reasons. First and foremost, it is a truly incredible personal story of a courageous woman, as we say in Hebrew “Eishet Chayil”, the Women of Valor. The eyewitness authentic accounts of the Chernobyl tragedy and of the antisemitism in the Soviet Union are a valuable contribution to our understanding of those phenomena, both for professional and ordinary audiences. No doubt, many people will enjoy the cultural and historical references abundant in the book and will smile while reading about the adventures of Alla Shapiro the immigrant. But in my eyes, the greatest value of the book is the inducement to reflect on the current realities through the prism of past experiences. I believe this is the book’s major message, that is why the author shares her concerns, assessments, and recommendations on the best response to the Covid19 pandemics, which she argues must be based on data, science, and transparency. 

As an American citizen, Dr. Shapiro is primarily concerned with US critical preparedness, and I am sure the readers will appreciate her thoughts on how the government should better tackle the pandemic in the country. However, the topics raised in the book have global implications, far beyond the United States. The Chernobyl tragedy demonstrated that by hiding information from its own population any government will run the risk of a crisis that gets out of control. Was this lesson learned when coping with the Covid-19 pandemic? Definitely not. Just look at the phenomenon of “infodemics” around the coronavirus. At the anti-vax conspiracy theories spread on social media. Or the fact that in this age of information, a year and a half after the outbreak of the pandemic, we still don’t have a clear picture about the origins of the virus.  

  Dr. Shapiro tells how back in 1986, scientists from neighboring countries alerted the international community about the nuclear explosion in the Soviet Union. 35 years later, we see global campaigns destined to undermine the vaccination efforts, to spread false information and to deliberately discredit efforts of rival countries to struggle with pandemics. Be it the “prestige” of the superpower, as was the case in the USSR, or some obscure geopolitical calculations as might be the case today, the lesson of transparency was not learned. The Chernobyl crisis management by the Soviet leadership revealed how the policies of information manipulation could backfire and be self-destructive. When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, democratic countries might have difficulty in resorting to lockdowns and other harsh measures, but they could swiftly accommodate social and political pressures and change leadership to cope with the crisis. The story is different for authoritarian regimes. The Chernobyl disaster overwhelmed the people in the Soviet Union and led to the USSR's inevitable collapse 5 years later, a result of a pervasive and insurmountable loss of trust in the system. As to the Covid-19 pandemic, it is too early to say what would be its long-term political fallout but judging by the past events it is unavoidable.

Those are my first personal reflections after reading “Doctor on call”. At heart, this is a book of reflection, not just a memoir, and a significant dose of reflection is what we all need today. No less than an effective vaccine.

Multilateral diplomacy and AI: between ethics and geopolitics (recording)

 Briefing I gave on May 12, 2021. 

In “geopolitics of bits and bytes”, Europe takes an independent approach on AI

 

        

      The outbreak of Covid19 a year ago intensified the debates about regulation of Artificial Intelligence. Given the role of AI technologies in fighting the pandemics, the attention of all stakeholders to its impact, both positive and negative, was all too obvious. As a result, the extensive use of these technologies by some governments to control the propagation of coronavirus brought to light controversial and disturbing aspects of AI. Human rights advocates and experts sounded the alarm about large-scale use of the facial recognition AI technologies for surveillance purposes. Beyond the pandemic situation, concerns were also raised about military use of Artificial Intelligence and other AI applications that could endanger privacy, amplify the polarization of societies and empower the autocrats. 

     Those concerns are raised periodically by members of the expert community and leaders of the hi-tech industry. Take for example Elon Musk, who already in 2014 said to MIT students: “I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence... I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish.” However, the conference organized last week by the Council of Europe showed that now senior government representatives of the continent add their voices to those concerns, sending a clear message: Europe will not sit idle in face of this challenge. 

     The conference’s title “Human rights in the era of AI: Europe as an international standard setter for Artificial Intelligence” embodies the essence of Europe's ambitious goal. The conference was organized by Germany who took over the presidency of the Council of Europe last November and announced that the question of human rights and technologies will be one of its key priorities in this role. German minister of Foreign Affairs, Heiko Mass, who opened the conference set the tone for the discussions that followed when he declared, loud and clear, that it is for democratic parliaments and governments to decide on AI regulation. 

     Minister Mass emphasized two major elements of the European strategy of AI. First, he stressed the importance of developing Europe’s own capabilities in AI technologies and announced that to achieve this goal the EU budget earmarked 200 billion euro for digitalization. The second element of the plan is to establish European standards of Artificial intelligence that “can create benchmarks worldwide”. According to him, the Council of Europe, working with European Union, possesses a significant legal framework and instruments to address the problems of AI regulation.  

     Beyond the operational items of its AI strategy, the European vision of the “geopolitics of bits and bytes” and “digital bipolarity” merits attention. German Minister of Foreign Affairs describes the emergence of two poles of power around Artificial Intelligence: the Chinese digital model that prioritizes surveillance, and the heavily market-oriented Silicon Valley model. Instead of choosing one side in this rivalry, Europe will be open to all partners who share the conviction that AI technologies should reinforce democracy and human rights, not erode them. Mr. Mass also had a message for the new US administration: while expressing hope that President Biden will be a partner to his vision, he asserted that

 “... we shouldn’t wait for Washington.  Our ambition must be to continue building our own European digital model that puts humans at the center, remains open to the world and protects our values and democracy.”

( Speech by Federal Foreign Minster Heiko Maas at the virtual conference “Human Rights in the Era of AI: Europe as an international standard setter for Artificial Intelligence”, https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/maas-human-rights-artificial-intelligence/2435928)

     The contours of the European digital model for AI regulation were first formulated in European Union’s Strategy for AI in 2018. In November 2019 the Council of Europe, another European multilateral organization, headquartered in Strasbourg and whose raison d'être is to safeguard democracy, rule of law and human rights in Europe, entered the fray and established a special ad-hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI). Aside from expertise in human rights protection, the Council of Europe’s additional advantage in forging all-European consensus around AI regulation comes from its significantly larger membership. All European states, with exception of Belarus, are members in the Council, including Russia and Turkey; countries outside Europe also joined CAHAI as observers, among them USA, Canada, Japan and Israel. In December 2020 the CAHAI published a feasibility study, which provides concrete recommendations to the Council of Europe on regulation of AI technologies. 

     The major conclusion of this feasibility study, which was also presented in the conference, is that “an appropriate legal framework will likely consist of a combination of binding and non-binding legal instruments that complement each other”. The report further elaborated the role of binding regulations:

           “Any binding document, whatever its shape, should not be overly prescriptive so as to secure its future-proof nature. Moreover, it should ensure that socially beneficial AI innovation can flourish, all the while adequately tackling the specific risks posed by the design, development and application of AI systems.” 

(Ad-hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) Feasibility Study, https://rm.coe.int/cahai-2020-23-final-eng-feasibility-study-/1680a0c6da)

     In my conversations with representatives of national delegations to the Council it was quite clear that most of them agree with the emerging approach on AI regulation, even if some had some mild reservations. This impression was reinforced also at the conference where an absolute majority of the panelists, including CAHAI experts, agreed on the need to establish binding regulation. Interestingly, the only voice of dissent came from a representative of Japan who expressed concern about the negative impact of regulations on innovation. And yet, the prevailing opinion of the experts refused to see the contradiction between ethics and innovation, spoke in favor of binding regulations, while admitting that socially beneficial innovation should enjoy more flexible regulation.

     The work of the Committee will continue throughout 2021 with the goal to complete its mission by the end of the year. The Council’s goal of setting European standards for AI is ambitious. However, its determination to establish a European digital model looks stronger than ever. Its sense of direction and destination is admirable. Considering this, it would be sensible for like-minded countries outside of Europe to join the discussion and address together legitimate concerns and differences of opinion. Time is of the essence.