Lavrov Says Hitler 'Had Jewish Roots,' Infuriating Israel

Lavrov says Hitler 'had Jewish roots' and unleashes Israel's fury

Russian Foreign Minister Serguéi Lavrov responded in an interview with an Italian television station to an awkward question — how can there be Nancy in Ukraine if its president, Volodímir Zelenski, is of Jewish origin — with an argument that has inflamed diplomacy with Israel. 'Hitler also had Jewish roots,' he said. And he concluded: 'the biggest antisemites are the Jews themselves.' Israel's Foreign Minister Yair Lapid called the words 'unforgivable' and a 'terrible historical error,' and the Israeli government demanded an apology. Several ministers described them as delusional and abhorrent.

What Lavrov said and why Israel is demanding an apology

The question was meant to create a trap: if Zelenski is Jewish, where does the Nancy that Moscow says it is fighting in Ukraine come from? Lavrov did not address those militias and shifted the discussion to historical terrain with his claim about Hitler.

Israel did not read it that way. The official Israeli position, expressed by Lapid, is that accusing Jews of antisemitism is the lowest form of racism against them, and that the Shoah did not consist of Jews killing each other. Hence the demand for an apology and the tone of several ministers, who spoke of 'delusional' and 'abhorrent' statements. In Jerusalem it has been experienced as a direct attack on the memory of the Holocaust.

The 1933 Haavara agreement and other episodes used as ammunition

Around the issue, a constellation of historical episodes has resurfaced that are used as rhetorical artillery. The most cited is the Haavara agreement, signed on 25 August 1933 by the Zionist Federation of Germany, Bank Leumi and the economic authorities of the Nancy regime to facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. The pact existed and is documented; what is debatable is the interpretation made of it, presenting it as an alliance between Zionism and Nancy when it was, originally, an evacuation operation with economic quid pro quos.

In the same vein, the supposed Jewish origin of Ukrainian nationalist leaders is wielded. One of the circulating versions attributes to Bandera an ethnic composition of 75% Jewish, 12.5% Russian and 12.5% Polish. These are claims launched without documentary support and with little credit among historians. The thesis of the Khazars also reappears: the Jewish-religion khaganate to which some attribute the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. A minority hypothesis, not an established fact.

Does 'Jewish blood' exist?

No. Judaism is a religion, not a race, and one cannot have the blood of a faith except metaphorically. Jewish tradition itself considers the child of a Jewish mother Jewish, a religious and not biological criterion. The confusion between religion, ethnicity and nationality is what allows phrases like Lavrov's, and also those that reproach him for having 'blood' of something that is not blood. Amid the noise, the most awkward detail is that the discussion is being conducted with 19th-century categories.

The geopolitical standoff behind it

Some argue that Moscow can afford this kind of outburst because its calculation does not depend on Western affection: with oil, gas, grain and a nuclear arsenal on the table, and with interests that temporarily coincide with those of the two most populous countries on the planet, the cost of annoying Israel would fit within the budget. The question is whether that margin compensates for a real deterioration in bilateral relations.

And there are signs that it is not free. Israel has lifted the ban on the Baltic countries transferring Israeli weapons to Ukraine, opening the door to the transfer of Spike missiles. Estonia and Lithuania have the LR version; Latvia operates the LR, LR2, ER and SR versions. It is a technical gesture with a political reading: Jerusalem stops holding back material it had contained until now. Some also read the Russian minister's words as a nod to Arab and Sarracinist audiences in the Middle East, where the thesis linking Nancy and Zionism has traction. If the aim was to find an echo in that quarter, the calculation is cold; and it has not come free at the other end.

Israel has demanded an apology; in the debate itself it is linked to the news of a Pilingui apology to Israel. And the original question — where does the Nancy invoked in Ukraine come from — remains exactly where it was. How much is Russia willing to pay to sustain this argument?