Abstract: В статье проводится социологический анализ этнографического материала, собранного в молодежных еврейских организациях Санкт-Петербурга. Согласно последним проведенным исследованиям, современные молодые
евреи испытывают «кризис идентичности», проявляющийся в снижении интереса к еврейской культуре и истории, и связанный с ним «кризис сакрального», заключающийся в размывании его границ и снижении осведомленности об иудаизме. Также петербургские общины редко становятся объектом социологического и антропологического анализа, что делает данное исследование особенно актуальным. Целью исследования было выявить, что является «сакральным» для молодых евреев Петербурга и как его защищают. В результате, на примере четырех еврейских организаций, показано, что для их участников сакральным является «еврейство», а также два нарратива о нем: «консервативный» и «прогрессивный», различающиеся в том, какое содержание вкладывается в понятие «еврейства». В первом случае — религия и традиции, во втором — культура
и самоопределение. Также делается вывод о связи структуры организаций и строгости классификации «сакрального» — в более иерархических и сплоченных группах сакральное оберегается от осквернения строже, чем в менее структурированных.
Abstract: Данное исследование фокусируется на теории С. Корнелла о «наполнении» этнической идентичности и «измерениях», которые ее составляют. Статья фокусируется на институциональном «измерении» и на основе этнографических данных, собранных в процессе реализации студенческого исследовательского проекта «Поля сакрального и религиозного в городском пространстве» (НИУ ВШЭ — Санкт-Петербург, 2025), предполагает, что не только общность, но и разобщенность институтов может служить «наполнением» коллективной
этнической идентичности молодых евреев. Для этого автор вводит неоинституциональное по своей природе понятие «института еврейства», в рамках которого показывает возможную институциональную разобщенность еврейской молодежи Санкт-Петербурга. Используются данные наблюдений, собранных в процессе посещения мероприятий четырех еврейских общинных центров в Петербурге, и интервью, проведенных с молодыми евреями в Санкт-Петербурге. Автор статьи предлагает расширение теории Корнелла.
Abstract: Mit den kleinen Pflastersteinen zum Gedenken an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, den Stolpersteinen, die Gunter Demnig 1990 konzipierte und seitdem in Deutschland in Bürgersteige verlegt, traf der Künstler sofort einen Nerv von Anwohnern, Passanten sowie zivilgesellschaftlichen und politischen Akteuren. Auch nach 25 Jahren haben diese Kleinstdenkmäler nichts von ihrer Überzeugungskraft verloren und heute finden sich Stolpersteine ebenso in 19 anderen europäischen Ländern. Für 120 Euro können Privatpersonen, Verbände, Vereine, Parteien sowie Angehörige oder Freunde der in der NS-Zeit Deportierten und Ermordeten einen 10 x 10 cm großen Messingquader finanzieren, den der Künstler dann mit eingravierten Namen und Daten direkt vor der früheren Wohnstätte eines der Opfer in den Boden verlegt. Diese Stolpersteine setzen Standards in der Geschichte der Denkmalkunst. Sie erinnern an alltägliche Personen, die nicht durch heroische Taten, sondern durch das, was ihnen angetan wurde, bedeutsam sind. Sie lassen erahnen, wie Menschen aus unterschiedlichsten Stadtvierteln willkürlich aus ihrem Lebenszusammenhang gerissen wurden und wie unmittelbar Opfer, Täter und "Zuschauer" miteinander gelebt hatten. Passanten nehmen diese stolperkantenfrei verlegten Steine nur aus größter Nähe wahr und stolpern über sie doch in geistiger Weise, mit der überraschenden Wahrnehmung einer mit individuellen Schicksalen verknüpften geschichtlichen Dimension des Ortes. Durch die einheitliche Form dieser Kleinstdenkmäler werden die unterschiedlichen Opfer symbolisch zusammengeführt und sind auch nicht -was eher der Täterlogik folgen würde -in verschiedene Opfergruppen geteilt (z. B. Juden, Sinti und Roma, Kommunisten oder Homosexuelle). Passanten oder hier Wohnende werden in persönlicher Weise mit einst hier Lebenden und ihrem Leid konfrontiert und können Empathie für diese deportierten und ermordeten Mitmenschen entwickeln. Obwohl die leicht reproduzierbaren Messingobjekte nicht die Qualität eines künstlerischen Originals beanspruchen, sind sie als Merkzeichen geschichtlich authentischer Orte erfahrbar und fordern eine ethische Positionierung ein.
Abstract: In Deutschland werden die Debatten über Antisemitismus unter Muslim*innen zunehmend unter verzerrten Voraussetzungen geführt. So stellt z. B. die Alternative für Deutschland stellt Antisemitismus als ein „importiertes“ Feindbild aus dem Nahen Osten dar, das tief in der islamischen Religion verwurzelt sei. Diese Sichtweise suggeriert eine einfache Erklärung für die Quellen des Antisemitismus unter Muslim*innen, die jedoch in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung stark umstritten ist. So wird kontrovers diskutiert, ob die Sozialisation im Nahen Osten tatsächlich eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Entstehung antisemitischer Einstellungen spielt. Ebenso wird infrage gestellt, ob der Antisemitismus tatsächlich in der islamischen Tradition begründet ist. Viele Studien heben stattdessen hervor, dass nicht die islamische Religion an sich, sondern der islamische Fundamentalismus die entscheidende Triebkraft des Antisemitismus ist. Dieser Beitrag nähert sich der Thematik anhand mehrerer Bevölkerungsumfragen und vor allem einer Befragung unter deutschen Muslim*innen. Die Analysen zeigen, dass antisemitische Einstellungen unter Muslim*innen – besonders in ihrer tradierten gegen Israel gerichteten Artikulationsform– häufiger vertreten sind als im Durchschnitt der Gesamtbevölkerung. Dennoch können viele der gängigen Annahmen über die Ursachen des Antisemitismus die Unterschiede innerhalb der muslimischen Gemeinschaft nicht ausreichend erklären. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass die Neigung zu antisemitischen Einstellungen nicht signifikant zwischen Muslim*innen unterschiedlicher Herkunft variiert. Auch die individuelle Religiosität der Muslim*innen ist kein wesentlicher Prädiktor für antisemitische Haltungen. Vielmehr zeigt sich, dass eine fundamentalistische Interpretation der Religion ein zentraler Einflussfaktor ist. Eine Moderationsanalyse deutet darauf hin, dass Antisemitismus ein herkunftsübergreifendes Feindbild unter fundamentalistischen Muslim*innen darstellt. Dieser Einfluss des religiösen Fundamentalismus erweist sich dabei auch im Vergleich zu anderen Erklärungsansätzen als robust.
Author(s): Halioua, Bruno; Bantman, Patrick; Rimmer, Rachel; Ghozlan, Eric; Vaislic, Muriel; Halioua, Dan; Amson, Fabienne; Taieb, Charles; Prasquier, Richard; Gutthman, Jean-François; Ejnes, Robert; Dassa, Stéphanie; Astruc, Alexis; Cohen, Marc; Sarfati, Samuel; Fohlen-Weill, Marc; Namia-Cohen, Odile; Deutscher, Aline; Taieb, Jonathan
Abstract: Objective: The terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023 in southern Israel had a significant impact on the mental health of Holocaust Survivors (HS), who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to traumatic events. The aim of the study was to assess the severity of perceived stress and the psychological impact of the 7 October attacks on HS.
Methods: The study was conducted from 30 October to 15 December 2023 among HS who were contacted through HS support organisations (OSE, Aloumim). They completed a questionnaire consisting of four sections: socio-demographic data and experiences during the Holocaust, assessment of psychological stress using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), feelings of isolation, health consequences, and reactions to the 7 October attacks.
Results: 171 HS completed the questionnaire with 61 males (35.7%) with a mean age of 86.6+/−4.4 years (min 79–max 97). 59.6%, lived outside Israel, mainly in France. The mean score on the PSS-10 was 17.7 +/−6.0 on a scale of 5 to 40. The average PSS 10 score is not significantly higher in cases of age ≤90 years (18.0 ± 6.0 vs 15.7 ± 6.4, NS), or for those living in Israel (17.2 ± 5.3 vs 18.1 ± 6.6, NS). About a quarter reported feelings of isolation or loneliness following the attacks. The impact of the 7 October attacks was particularly significant among those living outside Israel. Approximately two-thirds felt that the events had rekindled memories of their Holocaust experiences, and nearly one-third observed a decline in their health since the attacks. Among survivors living outside Israel, 86.6% expressed concern about the future safety and identity of their children and grandchildren as Jews.
Conclusion: Identifying Holocaust survivors (HS) who are experiencing psychological distress is crucial to providing them with appropriate therapy.
HIGHLIGHTS
75.3% of Holocaust Suvivors experienced moderate to severe distress in the two months following the 7 October terrorist attacks, as measured by the PSS-10 questionnaire
Non-Israeli HS tend to think more frequently about the Holocaust period (87% vs 62.7%, p ≤ .05) and more often make a spontaneous link between the images broadcasted of the October 7 massacre and what happened during the Holocaust (83.7% vs 66.7%, p ≤ .05).
Compared to non-Israeli HS, those living in France and Canada are more anxious about the future of their children and grandchildren as Jews (86.6% vs 58.8%, p ≤ .05).
Abstract: October 7, 2023 is regarded as the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Shoah and marks a historical turning point. Since then, the repercussions of this terrorist attack and the subsequent Hamas-Israel war have been intensely debated. Antisemitic and violence-glorifying incidents in certain Muslim-migrant milieus have triggered emotionally charged debates on so-called “Muslim antisemitism.” However, little is known so far about the broader impact of October 7 and the war on the Muslim population in Germany. This study is based on a secondary analysis of the dataset Muslim Faith in Germany, collected between July 2023 and April 2024, and allows for a quasi-experimental before-and-after comparison in line with the Unexpected Event During Survey Design (N = 712 before, N = 1119 after October 7). The findings indicate that antisemitism among Muslims in Germany has changed significantly but only marginally since October 7, 2023, with consistently high approval rates between 30% and 35% for pronounced traditional antisemitism and between 23% and 19% for pronounced Israel-related antisemitism. Striking is the notable increase in radicalization potential: antisemitism—particularly in its Israel-related form—is significantly more strongly associated after October 7 with willingness to participate in unauthorized demonstrations, readiness for self-sacrifice, sympathies for Islamist actors, and acceptance of violence and terrorism as a means to enforce Muslim interests. Regression analyses show that especially lacking political integration, high fundamentalism, and threat perception are significantly associated with antisemitism after October 7. Implications for research and practice are discussed, regarding the strengthening of political trust, the dismantling of fundamentalism, and the reduction of collective threat perceptions.
Abstract: This paper deepens our understanding of the construction of ethno-racial diversity and difference in organizations, and the consequences of those discursive struggles on the lives of workers. Categories of difference are usually seen as building blocks of diversity management, however critical and postcolonial researchers have long pointed out the need to develop more flexible and context-sensitive epistemologies in studying racial inequality, beyond binary conceptions of blackness and whiteness. The Jewish context offers a unique opportunity to explore those discursive dynamics, due to the elusive nature of “Jewish difference”, taboos over the use of racial classifications, and possible conflicts between an anti-racist stance and a Zionist affiliation. Exploring the diversity discourse within UK Jewish nonprofit organizations reveals three main diversity frames: in the first, “Jews are white”, the construction the Jewish organization as a white space is explored, as well as DEI efforts to bridge the Jewish-black gap; the second, “Jews are non-white”, explores this re-emerging discourse in the context of DEI, and investigates its acceptance as an act of reclaiming a historically marginalized identity, and as an appropriation of racial difference; the third, “Jews are ethnically diverse” explores the manifestations of Ashkenazi-Sephardi relations in diaspora organizations, and the sidelining of race. Throughout those diversity discourses, the repercussions on the lives of workplace are critically examined.
Abstract: Diaspora organizations can be seen as spaces where national identities are negotiated, expanded, and contested, and as transnational sites where organizational members hold overlapping and multiple frames of belonging and loyalty. This framing suggests the potential to extend diversity debates beyond the us/them binary logic of the nation-state. This qualitative study explores representations of Israel-Palestine in Jewish organizations in the UK, that broadly identify with a liberal Zionist orientation. It examines how nationhood and attachment to “homeland” are constructed, negotiated, and managed in everyday organizational life, with particular attention to moments of ambiguity and dissent. It shows how, as employees navigate diasporic ambivalence, diversity and inclusion discourses work to shape and often limit political-ideological differences. It contributes to diversity and organization studies by conceptualizing nationhood and homeland attachment as DEI questions and by advancing a diaspora organizational lens on how nationalism and belonging are negotiated in workplaces. It also highlights the ambivalent role of communities in DEI work, showing how community engagement can operate both as a source of ethical grounding and as a gatekeeping mechanism that constrains organizational capacity to accommodate difference.
Abstract: This paper examines the adaptation and proliferation of antisemitic narratives on Telegram during the Russian-Ukrainian war, tracing their evolution from historical myths to digital propaganda. Through a qualitative analysis of Telegram channels in Russian and Ukrainian, we explore how classical antisemitic tropes such as conspiracy theories about Jewish global control, Holocaust denial, and accusations of dual loyalty are repurposed to shift blame for the war onto Jews. Our findings reveal a multilayered process of blame-shifting operating across historical, social, national, and global levels, positioning Jews as instigators of conflict to deflect civic and political responsibility from Russians and Ukrainians. We argue that this antisemitic rhetoric serves as a tool of social manipulation and political deflection, embedded in diverse nationalist and conspiratorial digital environments. By embedding these narratives within Telegram’s unregulated and virally oriented ecosystem, content creators amplify prejudice, erode social cohesion, and perpetuate cycles of mistrust and scapegoating. This study highlights the enduring power of antisemitic myths in contemporary digital conflict narratives and calls for further research into the structural mechanisms enabling their spread.
Abstract: Antisemitism, understood as a particular manifestation of racism directed against a collectivity defined by religion, ethnicity, or a combination of both, constitutes a form of social exclusion. Such exclusion operates through formal and informal mechanisms that separate members of the targeted group from full participation in various spheres of social life. It may manifest as an outright prohibition from entering specific social circles or events, or as a conditional and restricted form of participation-one permitted only under special, typically unfavorable, terms. In both situations, inclusion is perceived as improper or undesirable, and when it occurs, it is often subject to heightened scrutiny or control. As with other forms of racism, antisemitism may persist within a society irrespective of the presence or absence of legislation explicitly supporting it. Moreover, antisemitism can remain operative even in contexts where laws formally prohibit ethnic or religious discrimination. This is possible because exclusion and discrimination may assume subtle or covert forms, legitimized through the selective or manipulative use of legal provisions that allow for differential treatment on ostensibly neutral grounds. The capacity of antisemitism to hide behind seemingly unrelated attitudes or arguments -masking negative sentiment toward Jews as a collectivity- raises fundamental questions about how the term “antisemitism” should be defined and what indicators are necessary for its identification and systematic analysis. This paper discusses the controversy surrounding competing definitions of antisemitism as it emerged before and after the recent Israel-Palestinian conflict, where legitimate political critique of the State of Israel is at times intertwined with antisemitic discourse disguised as purely political disapproval of Israeli policies or leadership.
Abstract: n 2000, I was commissioned by Inter Nationes to update my 1997 brochure on Jews in Contemporary Germany. I submitted the following article in early 2001. Unfortunately, Inter Nationes felt that my new version was too long and too inflammatory; they felt that it might end up annoying too many people. So the Inter Nationes version which has since appeared in several languages is greatly abridged. This ‘original’ version reflects my own opinions, and has not been ‘politically corrected’. I believe, however, that it presents a more comprehensive, better balanced and ultimately more positive picture of Jews in Germany today. THE QUESTION COMPLEXES There are so many aspects to the ‘Jews in contemporary Germany’ theme that I find it practical to group them into three complexes. The first complex concerns Jews among themselves, and I call it ‘Germany’s Jews’. Who are the Jews living in Germany now, the remaining ‘establishment’ (the postwar, pre-unification community) and the newcomers? How and how well do they coexist? What are the major internal issues confronting the Jewish community today, and what is likely to be the future of Jewry in Germany? It is the second question complex which tends to attract the most attention, both within Germany and outside the country: ‘Jews and non-Jews in Germany’. How come there are still any Jews at all living in Germany after the Holocaust? How do these Jews get along with the Germans (a loaded question if ever there was once, since it assumes that Jews are not Germans, and Germans are not Jews) and vice versa? What role does anti- Semitism play in Germany, assuming that it does play one? What do the Jews living in Germany perceive as the major issues confronting their relationship with the ‘outside world’ – that is, with anybody and everybody who is not a Jew living in Germany, and in particular, with Jews living in the United States? And this last question brings us to the third complex, since we are back to considering Jews among themselves, this time not just within Germany but across the Atlantic. I call this complex ‘the American factor’ and extend it to include the current state of the so-called German-Jewish dialogue. This too is a loaded concept, complicated by the fact that the ‘Germans’ in this case are automatically non-Jews, and the ‘Jews’ are usually American Jews. In the pages to follow, I shall try to give a brief overview of all three complexes. The first is probably the most interesting, if only because only the people concerned, the Jews living in Germany, know anything much about it. Certainly, the internal Jewish complex is generally little known to, and even less understood by, the rest of the German population. For the most part, the rest of the world, including other Jewish populations, either have no interest in the topic, or have erroneous ideas based on myth and prejudice. I shall therefore start with the Jews among themselves.
Abstract: Статья исследует основные направления эмиграции горских евреев во второй половине XX – начале XXI века. Горские евреи, кавказские евреи или джууры, а если быть точнее, то их предки появились на Кавказе, предположительно в VI в. н.э. Местами их компактного расселения в данном регионе стали территории современной Азербайджанской Республики и юг Республики Дагестан. Горские евреи всегда в гармонии и мире проживали с другими народами на Кавказе. Ситуация поменялась в 1970-х. гг. когда они начали репатриироваться в Израиль. Однако, более массовый характер переселенческое движение приобрело в 1990-х гг. в период дезинтеграции СССР. Автор анализирует причины массового исхода представителей этой общины, включая политические, экономические и социальные факторы. Особое внимание уделяется миграционным маршрутам, таким как переезд в Израиль, США и Европу, а также особенностям адаптации горских евреев в новых условиях. В работе рассматриваются изменения в культурной идентичности и сохранении традиций в условиях диаспоры. Среди использованных в данном исследовании методов можно назвать исторический метод (историко-генетический), историко-сравнительный метод, историко-типологический метод, историко-структурный метод, документальный анализ. Исследование сочетает исторические и социологические аспекты эмиграции горских евреев, что позволяет более полно понять причинно-следственные связи. В статье представлены статистические данные, которые ранее не были учтены в исследованиях по данной тематике. Анализируются новые миграционные маршруты и связи с диаспорами, что актуализирует проблему идентичности и культурной адаптации. Исследуется влияние политических и экономических изменений в странах исхода и приема на динамику эмиграции. В ыводы: 1. Эмиграция горских евреев во второй половине XX века была преимущественно вызвана политическими и экономическими трудностями, а в начале XXI века – поиском лучших условий жизни и интеграции в новые общества. 2. Основные направления эмиграции: Израиль, США, Канада, Германия и Австрия, где горские евреи нашли возможность поддерживать свою культуру и идентичность. 3. Процесс эмиграции оказал значительное влияние на демографическую структуру, что привело, фактически, к исчезновению общин горских евреев в традиционных местах проживания.
Abstract: Значимость темы данного исследования заключается в том, что с момента создания Еврейской автономной области на ее территории успешно работали различные еврейские национальные коллективы. Однако в силу политических и экономических причин они прекратили свое существование в 1990-е годы. В рамках реализации «Стратегии культурной политики РФ» в 2000-е годы идея возрождения еврейского театрального искусства в Еврейской автономной области приобрела актуальный характер. Однако реализация этой идеи имела определенные сложности, на которых и останавливается автор статьи. Целью работы стал анализ имеющегося опыта возрождения еврейского театрального искусства на территории Еврейской автономной области посредством изучения творческой деятельности театра «Когалет». Предметом исследования стал еврейский театр, существовавший на территории ЕАО на протяжении XX века, а предметом попытки его возрождения в XXI веке. Автор статьи останавливается на процессах появления в регионе еврейских театральных коллективов в ХХ веке, говорит о важной роли их в процессе формирование социокультурного пространства дальневосточного региона. В результате, используя системный метод, автор провел не просто анализ материалов газеты «Биробиджанская звезда», но и выделил ряд проблем по вопросам возможного возрождения еврейского театра на территории ЕАО. Ведь значение еврейской культуры в национальной автономной области является главным фактором сохранение этого субъекта в федеративном устройстве России. В тоже время проблема заваленной темы состоит в самом существовании ЕАО, где евреи не являются титульной нацией, как следствие возникает вопрос о необходимости создании еврейских театров в современных условиях.
Abstract: En France, depuis le début des années 2000, au sein du judaïsme orthodoxe et moderne orthodoxe, de plus en plus de femmes mettent en place différentes stratégies d’« empouvoirement » pour accéder aux textes religieux, les étudier, les interpréter, les enseigner et exercer des fonctions religieuses. Tout en interrogeant leurs différentes mobilisations, l’autrice montre que ces femmes participent à la recomposition du religieux, et ce, en renégociant les frontières entre le public et le privé, et en contribuant à la production de discours religieux et féministes.
Abstract: The authors of this text, two Israeli historians, probe the background to the keynote speech delivered by Thomas Rose, the US ambassador to Poland, at the conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Judges in Warsaw in November 2025. The newly appointed envoy—a Republican political appointee and former publisher of The Jerusalem Post—insisted that claims of any Polish complicity in the German annihilation of Polish Jewry amount to a “blood libel.” In Contrast, Dreifuss and Weinbaum contend that these remarks serve to reinforce ongoing efforts by individuals and Polish officialdom to delegitimize the rigorous scholarship of a determined band of Polish researchers who have been studying wartime Polish–Jewish relations for nearly three decades. While condemning the occasional conflation of Poles with the actual masterminds and prime perpetrators of the Final Solution, the authors emphasize that local participation in the degradation, dispossession, and destruction of Polish Jews was far more extensive than had been previously recognized. They further argue that both Communist and post-Communist governments, as well as Polish individuals and institutions at home and in exile, have resisted confronting these findings and that scholars and others who challenge more reassuring narratives have faced sustained and often vitriolic attacks. The authors conclude that this excruciating chapter of history must be confronted dispassionately—on the basis of meticulous scholarly inquiry—and should not be subordinated to diplomatic or political agendas.
Abstract: In his article, the author responds to Jörg Hermann Yiftach Fehige's criticism, expressed in the article “Jewish Theology as a Science in the Context of Post-Shoah Germany” in the fall 2026 issue of “Theology and Science”. He explains why theologies, as a subject, are an integral part of the arts and humanities within the Central European university system, and why Jewish theology was added as a university subject as late as 2013, 190 years after this had been demanded by Rabbis Abraham Geiger (1836) and Ludwig Philippson (1837) as a prerequisite for the successful emancipation of Jews in a “Christian State” (Friedrich Schlegel). He also speaks out against allegations reported in Fehige's contribution that he is an abuser, cheater, and plagiarist. Keywords: Paul Feyerabend, Abraham Geiger, German Science and Humanities Council, Jewish emancipation, Jewish identity, Jewish theology, liberal democracy, relationship between state and religions, Reform Judaism, Wissenschaft des Judentums, World Union for Progressive Judaism.
Abstract: This study explores how students negotiate complex and sensitive issues in schools, focussing on the October 7, 2023, attacks and their consequences. Drawing on discourse analysis informed by Foucault and discursive psychology, we analyse students’ talk in focus group discussions as situated social action, examining how they make sense of events, construct accounts and position themselves and others. The analysis provides empirical insights into how students navigate a contested topic and contributes to pedagogical approaches that support democratic dialogue and critical engagement. The results show that students negotiate meaning through a knowledge positioning discourse, which shapes students’ willingness to engage amid epistemic ambiguity; a moral positioning discourse, which introduces pressures to take a stance and challenges deliberative ideals; and an anti-antisemitism discourse, which exposes tensions between critique of Zionism and antisemitism. Findings reveal that reliance on media-informed narratives, moral framings and contested identity categories can both enable and constrain dialogue, sometimes reinforcing polarisation and feelings of alienation. The study argues for pedagogical strategies that foster epistemic security, promote perspective-taking and critically engage with the politics of language to dismantle stereotypes and prevent dichotomous narratives.
