Abstract: Dans la brochure informative qu’elle fait publier lors de son ouverture en 1935, l’école Maïmonide affirme vouloir faire de ses élèves des adultes « conscients de leurs doubles devoirs envers le judaïsme dont ils sont les héritiers, envers la France dont ils seront les citoyens dévoués ». Le premier lycée juif français s’est donc donné pour objectif de former une élite communautaire qui puisse mener une vie citoyenne et professionnelle épanouie en France tout en assurant la relève de la vie juive dans le pays. De fait, parmi les valeurs juives transmises en son sein, le sionisme a toujours tenu une place de premier plan. Comment expliquer qu’un établissement scolaire se donnant pour mission principale d’assurer la pérennité d’une vie juive en France accorde une telle importance au sionisme ? En analysant les différentes manières dont le sionisme a été interprété et mis en pratique dans le cadre de l’école Maïmonide, cet article propose de montrer comment, au fil des générations, l’établissement n’a cessé de concilier son attachement au sionisme avec la volonté d’œuvrer pour l’essor du judaïsme en France. Cette analyse permettra de revenir sur l’histoire de ce premier lycée juif français qui, bien qu’évoqué dans de nombreux travaux portant sur l’histoire de l’éducation juive en France, n’a jusqu’ici fait l’objet d’aucune une étude spécifique. Plusieurs historiens ont signalé l’absence d’archives conservées par le lycée Maïmonide pour expliquer cet angle mort historiographique. Pour remédier à ce manque, cet article s’appuiera sur des sources provenant de divers fonds d’archives institutionnels et privés, sur la presse communautaire et sur une cinquantaine d’entretiens, menés entre 2016 et 2020 en région parisienne et en Israël, avec d’anciens élèves et professeurs de l’établissement scolair…
Abstract: Israelis form a unique case in the field of diaspora studies. When the State of Israel was founded in 1948 it was seen as the longed-for end to the wandering and oppression which had characterized the Jewish diaspora over the centuries. For various reasons, however, about ten percent of the Israeli population chooses to live abroad despite the condemnation of those who see emigration as a threat to the ideological, demographic, and moral viability of Israel itself. The rejection of emigration from Israel is a central assumption in all forms of Zionism as a corollary of the «negotiation of diaspora» which was a central tenet of Israeli Zionist education. During the recent years many educated young people, relatively recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, have emigrated to the West, and also emigration (which could not be described as returning migration) to Russia is now fairly widespread. The employment market in Russia is flexible, and free market policies lead to competition for talented young graduates who enjoy breathtaking opportunities and high salaries, in comparison to Israel. These migration waves create a new phenomenon - the Russian-speaking transnational post-Israeli diaspora. These people feel free to choose, on purely instrumental grounds, their target society - Israel, when conditions seem favorable, Russia, if it seems to offer more, and for the same reasons, the United States or other Western countries. The Russian-speaking post-Israeli immigrants do not aspire to «get home», but rather to reach a place where they can «build a home». The problem of emigration from Israel is far more serious than suggested by previously published data, which concentrated on the extent of emigration, the countries chosen, and the motivation for leaving. Emigrants are not a representative sample of the population. The proportion of well educated individuals among emigrants is significantly greater than this proportion in the overall population. The emigration of the most talented citizens and the slump in immigration is a problem in itself, but it must also be understood as a symptom of a general failure by the State of Israel to create a society capable of attracting and keeping the best and brightest of the Jewish people.
Abstract: This thesis analyses three Central European countries – Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary - and their relations with Israel. I chose these three Central European countries because they share the same geopolitical space and historical experience. These three Central European countries and Israel are geographically distant, face different geopolitical threats, and have only a few policy issues in common. Nonetheless, ‘the question of Israel’ has been very much present in the foreign policies of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Building on constructivism and IR scholarship that engages with memory studies, this thesis explores the process of national identity re-formation and its impact on the formulation of national interest. Specifically, it focuses on: a) past legacies, institutionalized in collective memory and expressed in narratives, which linger over and constrain policy choices; b) the role of decision-makers with a special focus on their role in national identity re-formation in times when a policy is in transition and when a new regime must establish its legitimacy. I look at the historical roots of the relations of the three Central European countries with Israel. I do so by analysing the role of the Jewish question in the nation-building process of Polish, Czech, and Hungarian nations. Further, I argue that as the three former Communist countries started to re-define their relations with Israel, the legacy of the Jewish question has had a significant impact on the formulation of their foreign policies towards the Jewish state.
Abstract: La montée des revendications identitaires et l’affaiblissement de l’unité républicaine ont transformé le lien diasporique millénaire des juifs français envers Israël. Dans un contexte de pluri-appartenance et d’hyper-mobilité, leur identification semble même aboutir à un fort amalgame identitaire entre juifs et Israéliens, que l’importation du conflit israélo-arabe en France n’a fait qu’entériner. Percevant une trop grande différence face à la société majoritaire, nombre d’entre eux ont fait le choix du repli identitaire, voire même pour certains de migrer vers leur pays d’identification. Or, malgré la conception du retour qui caractérise leur installation en Israël, cette démarche nécessite une acclimatation à la société d’accueil. Cette double altérité mène à une recherche d’un entre-soi, que la plupart de ces migrants avait déjà développé en France. Ainsi, dans la confrontation à l’“autre’’, ils maintiennent une position communautaire, quel que soit leur pays de résidence.
Abstract: В конце прошлого, 2018го и начале этого 2019 года были опубликованы очередные доклады израильских, российских и украинских организаций, вовлеченных в процесс мониторинга появлений антисемитизма и ксенофобии на просторах бывшего СССР, и прежде всего – в России и Украине. Факты и выводы этих документов стали богатым информационным поводом и предметом оживленной дискуссии представителей политических кругов этих стран и различных фракций постсоветских еврейских элит. Основные разногласия связаны с темой классификации тех или иных событий в качестве антисемитских проявлений. Точкой соприкосновения сторонников разных подходов является стремление уделять особое внимание не только прямым физическими преступлениями или вандализма на почве ненависти к евреям, но и таким сюжетам как подстрекательство, попытки диффамации евреев и Израиля, отрицание Катастрофы, и антисемитизм, замаскированный под «антисионизм».
В конце прошлого, 2018-го и начале этого 2019 года вниманию общественности были представлены очередные доклады организаций, вовлеченных в процесс мониторинга появлений антисемитизма и ксенофобии на просторах бывшего СССР, и прежде всего – в России и Украине. Где тема отношения властей и общества к евреям стала заметным элементом психологической, дипломатической и информационной активности, сопровождающей уже более чем четырехлетний тяжелый конфликт между двумя странами. Не случайно, что факты и выводы документов, представленных в нынешней – как и прошлогодней серии докладов, стали богатым информационным поводом и предметом оживленной дискуссии представителей политических кругов этих стран и различных фракций постсоветских еврейских элит
Abstract: Концепция «двойной лояльности» в еврейском случае подразумевает, что еврей стоит на стороне Израиля вне зависимости от страны своего проживания, а принцип Талмуда, известный как «Закон государства обязателен для исполнения евреями» (Дина де-мальхута дина) часто рассматривается как требование к еврею придерживаться лояльности тому государству, где он живет. Попытка многих советских евреев, на разных этапах послевоенной истории этой страны, совмещать патриотизм в отношении страны проживания и преданность Израилю, воспринимался властями СССР как вызов и повод для репрессивных кампаний. Нынешняя ситуация в постсоветских странах в целом иная, и ближе к подходу современных демократических государств, признающих феномен «поли-лояльности» и двойного гражданства, закрепленного межправительственными соглашениями и программами о развитии культурных, научных, деловых и других связей.
Abstract: Deutschland und Israel, wie geht das zusammen? Immer wieder ist dies seit 1965, seit der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zwischen dem "Land der Dichter und Henker" und dem kleinen, selbstbewussten jüdischen Staat im Nahen Osten, gefragt worden. Es geht erstaunlich gut, bei aller Last der Vergangenheit.
16 deutsche und israelische Autoren geben Auskunft, wie aus zähen Annäherungsprozessen, mutigen Versöhnungsprojekten, pragmatischen Wirtschaftsvereinbarungen und spektakulären Geheimdienstkooperationen gegenseitiges Vertrauen erwuchs.
Israel und Deutschland sind heute wichtige Partner, auf nahezu allen Gebieten, selbst wenn unbewältigter Antisemitismus und ein verhärteter israelisch-palästinensischer Dauerkonflikt das Miteinander immer wieder verunsichern. Auch diese Probleme spart der Band nicht aus.
Abstract: This is a psychosocial research project investigating ‘national identity’ amongst middle class Jewish-Israelis in Britain. Its aim is to map key contents and highlight social categories that subjects draw on in their construction of ‘national identity’ and to study how they negotiate these categories and contents when narrating a story of ‘who they are’ as Israelis in Britain.
The first part of the thesis provides historical and theoretical background to the study of national identities, with a focus on Jewish-Israeli identity in the context of Zionism. An empirical study is then presented, in which twelve Israelis living in London were interviewed in depth about their views on Israeli national identity, what it meant personally to them to be ‘an Israeli’, and what it meant to be ‘an Israeli in London’. Interviews were transcribed and a critical narrative approach was used to analyze the resulting texts, taking account of reflexive interview processes as well as exploring links with the broader cultural and political context.
The findings reveal the elasticity and fluidity of ‘Israeli identity’. Subjects drew on a shared cultural reservoir - Zionist images, preconceptions and signifiers - to describe their personalized experience of belonging to or alienation from an acceptable notion of ‘Israeliness’ while living abroad.
‘Israeli identity’ was constructed against stereotypical images of ‘the others’ which, at times, applied racist discourse. Subjects constructed ‘Israeliness’ differently depending on the context they referred to (e.g. Israeli or British society). Each context had its distinct ‘others’. Within the British context Israeliness was constructed against the images of ‘the local Jews’, the ‘English’ and the ‘local Arabs and Muslims’.
Constructing an Israeli identity was also influenced by the social position that subjects were implicated in, in relation to their class, ethnicity, gender, or occupation. This also shaped their experience of dislocation in Britain.
Most of the participants conformed with a mainstream perspective on Israeli nationalism and refrained from criticizing it. This was interpreted as a discourse reflecting their privileged socio-cultural position in Israel and their commitment to a Zionist ethos which condemns emigration. Such a portrayal of Israeliness both initiated and contributed to a sense of unsettledness characteristic of this middle-class group. Subjects moved back and forth between two identificatory positions (‘Ha’aretz’ and ‘Israel’) as their points of identification constantly changed. The research contributes to the analysis of nationalism phenomena and associated concepts such as diaspora and belonging among a middle class group of migrants. It outlines cultural, material and political forces that sustain nationalism yet also demonstrates ways through which subjects negotiate or resist the discourses and social categories offered to them for the construction of a ‘national identity’.
Abstract: On the 12th November, 2015, City University published independent academic research on British Jewish attitudes towards Israel. Funded by Yachad, 1,131 adult British Jews were surveyed on their views on Israel by Ipsos Mori between March and June of 2015. The research design, analysis and interpretation of the data was carried out by a research team comprising: Stephen Miller, Emeritus Professor of Social Research in the Department of Sociology at City University London; Margaret Harris, Emeritus Professor of Voluntary Sector Organisation, Aston University, and Visiting Professor at Birkbeck, University of London; and Colin Shindler, Emeritus Professor of Israel Studies, SOAS, University of London.
The research found that Israel plays a central role for British Jews, with 93% saying the Jewish state plays a “central”, “important” or “some” role in their Jewish identity, and 90% supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. It reflected significant concerns about the security situation in Israel with many respondents ambivalent about withdrawal from the West Bank because of security concerns (50% vs 33% support the proposition that “Israeli control of the West Bank is vital for Israel’s security”), despite commitment to a two-state solution.
In addition:
75% stated that settlement expansion formed a “major” obstacle to peace. 68% endorsed the statement “I feel a sense of despair every time Israel approves an expansion of the settlements”.
73% felt that Israel’s current approach to the peace process has damaged its standing in the world.
There is strong support for Israel to “cede territory” in order to achieve peace (62% for, 25% against). But if withdrawal is seen as posing a risk to Israel’s security, the majority then oppose withdrawal (50%:33%).
61% felt that the Israeli government’s first priority should be “pursuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. 64% felt they had the right to judge Israel’s actions though they do not live there.
58% agree with the statement that Israel “will be seen as an apartheid state if it tries to retain control over borders that contain more Arabs than Jews” (22% disagree).
Almost 80% of respondents consider that, in the context of the conflicts raging around the world, those who condemn Israel’s military actions “are guilty of applying double standards”.
“Hawks” on Israel significantly overestimated how widely their views were shared by a factor of two while “doves” underestimated theirs by 10%. British Jews who believe Palestinians have no claim to own land think their views are shared by 49% of British Jewry, despite the actual figure being 14%.
Hannah Weisfeld, director of Yachad said of the findings of the report:
“The community is shifting. Feelings of despair, conflict between loyalty to Israel and concern over policies of the government are mainstream not marginal positions. The research shows we are more willing to speak out on these issues than ever before. Members of Anglo-Jewry who have previously been afraid to give voice to their concerns over Israeli government policy, should realise that they are in fact part of the majority.
This is against the backdrop of a Jewish community that remains fully committed to Israel and its centrality to Jewish identity.”
Abstract: This book considers the differing emotional investments in Israel of, on the one hand, Jews physically domiciled in Israel and, on the other hand, diasporic Jews living outside Israel for whom the country nonetheless forms a central point of affect. The book’s purpose is to trace how these two types of investment are represented by francophone Jewish writers. Israel is at once a problematic geopolitical reality in international politics and a salient topos within Jewish cultural imaginaries that transcend national boundaries. However, it has often been claimed that Israel has a “special” relationship with France, which until 1967 was its greatest ally. Israel has a large francophone community (some 800,000), while France has the largest Jewish community in Europe (some 600,000). But Franco-Israeli relations have undergone radical, largely negative transformations under the Fifth Republic (1958- ). The scope of the book is wide, addressing the following questions. How do francophone Jewish writers represent Israel in their literary works? What responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do they express both in these works and in non-literary discourse (interviews and journalistic articles)? What is the role in those responses of emotion, affect, cognition, and ethics? To answer these questions, the book examines 44 different autobiographies, memoirs and novels published between 1965 and 2012 by 27 different authors, both male and female, covering the full cultural spectrum of Jews: Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Mizrahi. The approach of the book is interdisciplinary, combining literary analysis with insights from the domains of history, journalism, philosophy, politics, psychoanalysis, and sociology.
Topics: Jewish Future, Strategic Planning, Globalisation, Israel-Diaspora Relations, Diaspora, Antisemitism, Main Topic: Other, Demography, Jewish Identity, Jewish Community, Jewish Status, Jewish Education, Religious Observance and Practice
Abstract: It goes against the intuition of some, triggers strong responses from others, and still raises the eyebrows of many: not only did Jewish Displaced Persons (DPs) and German Jews withstand attempts to entice them to make aliyah from Germany post-Shoah and become “local Jews,” but also Russian Jews immigrated in higher numbers to Germany than to Israel for a while, and now Israeli Jews are immigrating to Germany, too. Yet do Jews in Germany see themselves in exile from Israel, or has Germany become their home of choice? This paper explores the life-worlds of a select number of individuals who fall into the age cohort of the Third Generation, and who form part of the three numerically largest groups: German Jews and Displaced Persons (DPs) and their descendants (“local Jews”); Russian Jews and their children who came to Germany in the 1990s; and Israelis who started arriving in significant numbers in the 2000s. By depicting their life-worlds, the paper sheds light onto how Jews in the country structure, live, do, experience, and contend their Jewishness collectiveness, and express Jewishnessess individually, and how, effectively, they create diasporic life-worlds, and have a special relationship to Israel but hardly feel in exile from Israel.
Abstract: Far from being a blank space on the Jewish map, or a void in the Jewish cultural world, post-Shoah Europe is a place where Jewry has continued to develop, even though it is facing different challenges and opportunities than elsewhere. Living on a continent characterized by highly diverse patterns of culture, language, history, and relations to Jews, European Jewry mirrors that kaleidoscopic diversity. This volume explores such key questions as the new roles for Jews in Europe; models of Jewish community organization in Europe; concepts of diaspora and galut; a European-Jewish way of life in the era of globalization; and European Jews' relationship to Israel and to non-Jews. Some contributions highlight experiences of Jews in Britain, Sweden, Norway, Hungary, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. Helping us to understand the special and common characteristics of European Jewry, this collection offers a valuable contribution to the continued rebuilding of Jewish life in the postwar era.
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Sandra Lustig and Ian Leveson
PART I: OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
Chapter 1. A New Role for Jews in Europe: Challenges and Responsibilities
Diana Pinto
Chapter 2. European Models of Community: Can Ambiguity Help?
Clive A. Lawton
Chapter 3. Concepts of Diaspora and Galut
Michael Galchinsky
Chapter 4. ‘Homo Zappiens’: A European-Jewish Way of Life in the Era of Globalisation
Lars Dencik
Chapter 5. Israel and Diaspora: From Solution to Problem
Göran Rosenberg
PART II: INNER-JEWISH CONCERNS: REBUILDING AND CONTINUITY
Chapter 6. Left Over – Living after the Shoah: (Re-)building Jewish Life in Europe. A Panel Discussion
Sandra Lustig
Chapter 7. Debora’s Disciples: AWomen’s Movement as an Expression of Renewing Jewish Life in Europe
Lara Dämmig and Elisa Klapheck
Chapter 8. A Jewish Cultural Renascence in Germany?
Y. Michal Bodemann
PART III: THE JEWISH SPACE IN EUROPE
Chapter 9. The Jewish Space in Europe
Diana Pinto
Chapter 10. Caught between Civil Society and the Cultural Market: Jewry and the Jewish Space in Europe. A Response to Diana Pinto
Ian Leveson and Sandra Lustig
Chapter 11. ‘The Germans Will Never Forgive the Jews for Auschwitz’. When Things Go Wrong in the Jewish Space: The Case of the Walser-Bubis Debate
Sandra Lustig
Notes on Contributors
Index
Abstract: In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
In 2009 Natan Sharansky, formerly an iconic Soviet refusenik and now an Israeli politician, was named chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the wing of the Israeli government historically charged with fostering Jewish immigration to Israel, traditionally known as aliya. Sharansky, however, immediately reformulated the central mission of the Jewish Agency away from aliya and toward the strengthening of secular Jewish identity around the world. The Forward reported:
At the center of Sharansky's plan is the notion of peoplehood. He and a tight group of ideological allies—mostly other Russian Jews—believe that the Jewish Agency must now become a global promoter of Jewish identity, particularly among the young. Peoplehood, according to its proponents, is defined as a sense of connectivity between Jews who share a common history and fate.
With Sharansky's ascent to this particular position and the concurrent shift in the Jewish Agency's mission from fomenter of migration to builder of secular Jewish identity, Soviet Jews have moved to the center of conversations about Jewish identity and culture. These new developments give reason to think seriously about Soviet Jewish culture and its impact on global Jewish culture. Indeed, a growing number of books and articles on the subject indicate that there is a new body of scholarship, defined by a cultural studies approach to the Soviet and post-Soviet Jewish experience. These new studies come from varied disciplines, such as history, anthropology, film studies, and literary criticism, to name a few, but they all put culture and cultural production at the center of scholarship on Soviet and post-Soviet Jewish community and identity. We call this emerging field "Soviet Jewish Cultural Studies." This newly developing field sweeps across temporal and spatial boundaries. It encompasses Jewish experiences in both the Soviet and post-Soviet eras, as well as within the borders of the Former Soviet Union and outside of it, in Israel, North America, or elsewhere, wherever Soviet and post-Soviet Jews have migrated. What the subjects of all of this research have in common is the experience of having lived under the Soviet Union with its radical experiments in Jewish identity and culture.
Scholars working in this emerging field generally do not look at Soviet and post-Soviet Jews through the more traditional lenses of vanishing diasporas, Soviet anti-Semitism, and the disappearance of Yiddish and Hebrew cultures. Rather than approaching the Jewish experience of Soviet Jews with presumptions of what it means to be Jewish, and whether in fact Soviet Jews measure up, this scholarship asks what it means to be Jewish in a Soviet and post-Soviet context. In what ways is Jewishness performed and represented? By taking a birds-eye, interdisciplinary view, we want to redefine the field of Soviet Jewish Studies, and to use particular examples of the new research to suggest what a cultural studies approach reveals about Soviet and post-Soviet Jewish culture. We will demonstrate first that scholars of Soviet Jewish Cultural Studies have focused on new forms of Jewish practice that have sometimes supplanted traditional religious practices. Secondly, we show that this body of scholarship in Soviet Jewish Cultural Studies complicates the idea that twentieth century Jewish history is a history of assimilation, a movement downward from authentic Jewish practice rooted in Jewish languages to the end of a distinctive Jewish life. Most importantly, this new scholarship takes a global rather than national perspective, since post-Soviet Jewry is one of the most transnational in contemporary Jewish life. Thus, in a post-Soviet, post-Zionist, post-assimilationist moment in global Jewish culture, this group of Jews with their unique cultural history may be placed at the center, not periphery, of the global Jewish experience. Therefore, the body of scholarship forming Soviet Jewish Cultural Studies has much to offer to scholars in Jewish and Russian Studies, as well as Diaspora Studies.
Abstract: How have Jews in Germany, stranded or returned there after World War II, related to Israel and to Germany, and how have their attitudes evolved since then? For decades, most Jews had no plans to stay in Germany, and their identification with and commitment to Israel, certainly in the first two decades, was extraordinary. However, over time their distance and even hostility to the German environment began to lessen, especially as West Germany developed ever closer ties with Israel. To a considerable degree, Germans themselves first reinitiated contacts with Jews and Jewish issues via Israel. In recent years, coinciding with the influx of Russian Jews and the policies of the Netanyahu and Sharon governments, there has been renewed emphasis on Diaspora and its values and a more positive reappraisal of the history of Jews in Germany. Nonetheless, basic ambivalences remain in place.
Abstract: After World War II, the center of gravity for world Jewry moved outside Europe. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, large-scale emigration and postwar assimilation resulted in a disheartening contraction of European Jewry, with the notable exception of France. Today, Europe's Jews number only 17 percent of the world Jewish population. At the beginning of this century, they comprised 83 percent and were the center of the modern Jewish experience. In a radical reversal, former peripheries became the centers, notably American Jewry, the largest and most dynamic of the Diaspora communities, and the State of Israel. An examination of the altered place of Europe and its future role in Jewish history is long overdue.
In Jewish Centers and Peripheries, S. Han Troen presents evidence of cultural renewal and community reorganization—both internally driven and supported by Israeli-and American-based Jewish organizations—which promise to assure the continuity and vitality of Jewish life in Europe. This volume presents the contributions of scholars, senior community professionals, lay leaders, and former diplomats from Europe, Israel, and America, including Yosef Gorny, Gabriel Sheffer, Rashid Kaplanov, Barry Kosmin, Ralph Goldman, Jean-Jacques Wahl, Israel Finestein, David Patterson, and Daniel Elazar.
Abstract: The foundations of Israel Education in the UK are sound.
Participation in trips to Israel is higher than in nearly every country in the world.
Commitment is deep and strong, and Jewish educational and communal
leadership in general are intelligent, nuanced, and realistic. The UJIA is an
established central body that now defines Israel education as its primary
mandate, and other organisations such as the New Israel Fund, The Jewish
Agency for Israel, Yachad, Zionist Federation to name but a few have Israel at
their heart.
The challenge for Israel Education in the UK is to bring the quality of its vision, reach, and
programming up to the level of those who lead, plan and fund them.
