being confronted with the text of the “letter of repentance” allegedly sent by the senator Corneliu Vadim Tudor to the elections expert Eyal Arad on February 1;
examining the implications of this text in the context of the Romanian society, thus, not only from the perspective of the senatorâ€™s attitude towards Jews or towards the Jewish community in Romania;
appeal to the Romanian public opinion and to the decision factors in international politics, signaling on the danger that the cynical traps laid by this famous character in his populist effort represent. The electoral goal cannot be denied â€“ the possibility of the Great Romania Party’s participation in a future government and the escaping of the discomfort caused by international monitoring. Although he invokes Christian reasons in order to account for his “conversion,” one can easily see that Mr. Corneliu Vadim Tudor did not “negotiate” his sudden transformation, from leader of a suburban anti-Semite clique into an admirer of the Jewish people, with a confessor who might have listened to his confession and inflicted an unbearable soul torment, but with an “electoral juggler” whose record speaks for itself. The sincerity of his “repentance” is more than doubtful, especially when one can see, by examining the contents of “The Great Romania” magazine edited under the leadership of the figure-head of the Great Romania Party, that articles reeking of anti-Semitism and denial continued to be published in this abject publication in the period AFTER the day on which the letter is dated. Moreover, inadmissible sexist remarks aimed at Sandra Simovici, Israel’s cultural attachÃ© in Bucharest, were added to the list.
Also, we note that the senator’s “repentance” does not include the sins against the Romanian people. We believe that a genuine repentance should have begun with this chapter of his past, with the days of the infamous Week and up to the “lists of shame,” including the episode of the miners’ revolt of 1999. We appeal to the leaders of the Romanian Federation of the Jewish Community to take this aspect into account before mentioning, even as a “theoretical” possibility only, a future dialogue with this character.
The leader of the Great Romania Party would perform any populist clownery, and his partial or full recognition of these “gaps” wouldnâ€™t represent a surprise. Just as his “transfiguration” concerning the Jewish issue fails to convince us, in the same manner we will not be convinced by any of the electoral rabbits that Mr. CVT might pull out of the hat.
The only way to convince Romanians and the international public opinion of the sincerity of this change would be (at least) not to use it as a means to electoral ends (that is, not mentioning it at all). Withdrawing completely from the 2004 presidential elections (and not only these), accompanied by a long period of introspection would be even more convincing.
With regard to Mr. Eyal Arad’s expertise, we appeal to those who have employed him or intend to do so in the future to take into account the ethical aspect of this matter. By collaborating with Mr. Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Mr. Eyal made use of his democratic right to choose his clients in the context of a market economy. We draw attention to the fact that this right is not reserved exclusively to Mr. Eyal and that it also functions reciprocally.
Marco M. Katz