Content uploaded by Yechiel Klar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yechiel Klar on Jul 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 69, No. 1, 2013, pp. 125--143
The “Never Again” State of Israel: The Emergence of
the Holocaust as a Core Feature of Israeli Identity and
Its Four Incongruent Voices
Yechiel Klar∗
Tel Aviv University
Noa Schori-Eyal
University of Maryland
Yonat Klar
Tel Aviv University
For the vast majority of contemporary Israelis, the Holocaust is an acquired
memory. However, over the years its presence has not diminished but rather is on
the rise. We describe how perceptions of the Holocaust have changed from “what
Israeliness is not” in the 1940s and 1950s to a core element in Israeli identity.
Inspired by Bauer, we present four different and sometimes incompatible voices
related to the Holocaust that greatly affect the Israeli society. They are: Never
be a passive victim; never forsake your brothers; never be passive bystander;
and never be a perpetrator. Experimental evidence related to these voices is also
described.
Almost immediately after its establishment in May 1948, the State of Is-
rael, still enmeshed in a difficult war for its survival, became the home for the
largest community of Holocaust survivors. About 330,000 Jewish refugees from
∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yechiel Klar, School of Psycho-
logical Sciences, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel [e-mail:
yklar@post.tau.ac.il].
This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation to Yechiel Klar, a
grant from the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University to Yechel Klar, and
by a research prize from the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University to Noa
Schori-Eyal. The authors thank Hadas Laor and Tami Sunensein for their help with this article.
125
C
2013 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
126 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
devastated Europe joined the 600,000 members of the Jewish community in Is-
rael in a massive immigration influx. Thus, in 1949, almost every third person in
the newborn country was a Holocaust survivor (Yablonka, 1999). The Holocaust
survivors’ background was not so different from most of the veteran Israelis (who
came to the country before WWII). Basically, both groups emigrated from the
same, primarily Eastern European localities, and many if not most of the veteran
Israelis also had to cope with the news that the families they had left in Europe
had perished in the Holocaust. Yet despite this common background and mis-
fortune, there was an unbridgeable divide between the veteran Israelis and the
survivors. The Holocaust clearly “belonged” to the survivors and was alien to
those who lived in Israel when it transpired. The survivors were not asked to share
their stories with others or dwell on their experiences. They were expected to go
on with life, rehabilitate themselves, adopt the Israeli identity and become new
Israelis. The Holocaust in those days was perceived as something that had hap-
pened to the passive and cowardly Jews of the Diaspora who had gone “like sheep
to the slaughter” (e.g., Segev, 2000). It was seen as antithetical to the identity of the
“new Israeli,” who was active, free, and daring. The Holocaust was something that
happened “there” in the Jewish Diaspora and by no means could happen “here” in
the new and independent state of Israel.
Today, more than 65 years after the end of WWII, the number of living
Holocaust survivors has naturally dwindled (currently less than 3% of the Israeli
population). For the vast majority of contemporary Israelis, the Holocaust is an
acquired rather than a living memory. However, the presence of the Holocaust
and its place in Israeli collective identity has not faded in the last 65 years but is
rather on the rise (e.g., Bar Tal 2007; Ofer, 2009). For example, most of Oron’s
(1993) respondents, college students, endorsed the statement that “all Jewish
people must see themselves as Holocaust victims.” Most recently, 98.1% of the
respondents in a 2009 survey of the Jewish–Israeli adult population (Arian, 2012)
have stated that remembering the Holocaust is a guiding principle in their life; in
fact, more important principle than other guiding principles such as “Feeling part
of the Jewish people,” “Feeling part of Israeli society,” “Living in Israel” or even
“Having a family.”
In this article we first describe the omnipresence of the Holocaust in Israeli
life today. Then we delineate how the Holocaust has gradually been transformed
from “what Israeliness is not” into one of the core elements of Israeli identity.
Next, we argue (inspired by Bauer, 2002) that the Never Again imperative derived
from the Holocaust invokes not one but at least four powerful and frequently
conflicting voices. They are: (1) never be a passive victim; (2) never forsake
your brothers; (3) never be passive bystander; and (4) never be a perpetrator.
We will demonstrate how these voices impact major arenas of Israeli life today.
Finally, we will present experimental evidence pertaining to the first and fourth
voices.
The Never Again State of Israel 127
The Omnipresence of the Holocaust in Contemporary Israeli Life
Political scientists Liebman and Don-Yihya (1983) were among the first to
observe ( . . . ) the centrality of the Holocaust as the primary political myth of Israeli
society, the symbol of Israel’s present condition and the one which provides Israel
with legitimacy and the right to its land. ( ...)Itsmemoryisomnipresent,cutting
across differences in age, education and even country of origin (pp. 137–138).
This observation appears even more compelling today. The Holocaust is a
predominant issue in all areas of Israeli social and cultural life, including literature
(Feldman, 1992), film (Gertz, 2004), visual arts (Katz-Freiman, 2003), and even
humor (Zandberg, 2006). A comprehensive account of the Holocaust in current
Israeli life is beyond the scope of this article, but a number of examples can
demonstrate this point.
Daily mentions in the media. Rinkevich-Pave (2008) calculated how often
the word Holocaust (Shoah in Hebrew) appeared in 12 months (October 2007–
September 2008) in Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper. She compared this
historical event with the number of mentions of the term Israeli–Arab conflict
(in different versions such as Israeli/Jewish/Palestinian conflict), the major issue
Israeli society confronts day in and day out. The term Holocaust appeared 132
times, on average, every month, and Israeli–Arab conflict appeared roughly the
same number of times (140 times being the monthly average).
New Hebrew Holocaust titles. According to the National Library of
Israel’s (2011) statistics, books related to the Holocaust are the largest thematic
category of newly published Hebrew titles, even more than titles related to the
Israeli–Arab conflict and wars, the second most prevalent category.
In the Israeli school curriculum. In 1980, an amendment to the State Ed-
ucation Law defined “Holocaust and Heroism awareness” as one of the official
goals of the state educational system. Seventy-six percent of the high school stu-
dents in a recent survey indicated that “the Holocaust affects their world view,” and
94% stated that they “are committed to preserving the memory of the Holocaust”
(Cohen, 2010).
Holocaust remembrance day (Yom haShoah). Since the 1960s, Yom
haShoah has been an official memorial day in Israel. A siren is sounded through-
out the country for 2 minutes in the morning, during which all activities in Is-
rael come to a complete halt and the entire public stands at silent attention. All
places of entertainment are closed, media programming is devoted exclusively
to the Holocaust, and ceremonies are conducted in schools, military bases, and
128 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
public places (see Ben-Amos & Bet-El, 1999). Since 2005, International Holocaust
Remembrance day is also officially commemorated on January 27.
Organized trips to Holocaust sites. Every year since 1988, 10,000 Israeli
high school students accompanied by Holocaust survivors embark on intensive
8-day trips to death camps and other Holocaust sites, mainly in Poland (see
Bilewicz & Jaworska, 2013; Feldman, 2008; Hazan, 2001). The rate of participa-
tion on these trips is remarkable. Although they are voluntary and their costs are
mostly paid for by the students’ families, about 16% of the entire cohort every
year participates, and there is constant public pressure to view these trips as a
basic right of every Israeli youngster (Zelikovitz, 2010).
The Israeli army (IDF) also organizes trips for thousands of officers every
year to the death camps in Poland. One of the prime goals of this project, called
Witnesses in Uniform, is “strengthening the sense of commitment of the comman-
der to the State of Israel as a democratic state and to the Jewish people” (Edim
Be-madim, 2011).
The Holocaust presence scale. Rinkevich-Pave (2008) conducted a survey
study among 378 Jewish Israelis (245 women, 133 men), ranging in age from 18
to 71. The highly diverse sample included respondents from all over Israel, from
different ethnic backgrounds, people of different socioeconomic status and levels
of religious observance. About two thirds of the respondents had no direct family
ties to the Holocaust. The respondents were presented with 27 specific behaviors
and attitudes reflecting the place of the Holocaust (if at all) in their personal lives.
For each of these items they were asked to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement. Table 1 lists the 18 most widespread attitudes or behaviors, with
the percentage of those expressing strong and strong to moderate agreement.
The items indicating interest in acquiring knowledge about the Holocaust were
endorsed by most interviewees. In addition, more than half of the respondents also
indicated that they found themselves occasionally contemplating how they would
have behaved during the Holocaust, that the Holocaust affects their attitudes and
beliefs, that they are afraid the Holocaust could happen again, and that many
events in the news make them mull over it.
Together with findings reported by Oron (1993) and Cohen (2010), these data
suggest the ubiquity of the Holocaust in Israeli life, not just in the public but also
in the private sphere (see also Schuman, Vinitzky-Seroussi, & Vinokur, 2003).
Perceptions of the Holocaust in the First Postwar Decades in Israel
Numerous historians and social scientists have dealt with perceptions of the
Holocaust in Israel and how it has affected Israelis (e.g., Bar-Tal, 2007; Grodzinsky,
2004; Liebman & Don-Yihya, 1983; Ofer, 1996, 2009; Segev, 2000; Shapira,
The Never Again State of Israel 129
Tab le 1. Items from the Holocaust Presence Scale
Strong Strong to moderate
agreement (%) agreement (%)
On Holocaust remembrance day (Yom HaShoah) I make sure to
watch the programs on television about the Holocaust.
51.1 78
I consider myself to have a lot of knowledge about the Holocaust. 38.1 81
I think about how I would have behaved if I had found myself in
certain situations that happened during the Holocaust.
35.8 78
It is important for me to meet people who experienced the
Holocaust in order to hear their stories.
35.8 68
When I think of the Holocaust I feel that it overwhelms me
emotionally.
32.4 69
I have a habit of going to Holocaust museums in Israel or outside of
Israel (Yad VaShem, Anne Frank’s house, etc.).
32.3 62.7
When I see elderly people, I ask myself if they were in the
Holocaust.
31.7 61.3
When I am in Europe, I think about the Holocaust. 31.7 62.5
The Holocaust affects my beliefs and attitudes on different issues. 28.5 63
I am afraid the Holocaust will be repeated. 26.6 54.6
Because of the Holocaust it is hard for me to visit countries like
Germany and Austria.
24.7 43
I often choose to watch movies and plays related to the Holocaust. 23.9 50
Because of the Holocaust, I don’t take being alive for granted. 22.3 47.6
Many events in the news make me think about the Holocaust. 17.9 56
The Holocaust comes into my thoughts, both when I intend to and
when I don’t.
16.4 42
Sometimes I feel that the memory of the Holocaust influences my
behavior.
14.7 48.5
The memory of the Holocaust causes me to worry more about the
security and future of my children.
14.4 48.5
When I think about the future, I sometimes have thoughts about the
Holocaust.
12.5 30.6
1998; Yablonka, 1999; Zertal, 2005; Zuckerman, 1993). As noted by Shapira
(1989), from 1945 until the 1961 Eichmann trial the Holocaust was not a defining
feature of Israeli collective identity. Israelis who were not survivors “knew and
did not know about the Holocaust; ached and did not ache given the disaster”
(p. 325). Perceptions of the Holocaust at that time were mainly governed by the
conceptions, capacities, and needs of the newly founded State. They were filtered
through three partially overlapping prisms: the traditional (Jewish) perspective,
the Zionist perspective, and the perspective of the Israeli–Arab conflict.
130 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
The traditional (Jewish) perspective. Jewish historical remembrance
stretches back thousands of years and is replete with memories of historical
calamities, persecution, exile, deportations, and pogroms. According to this per-
spective, the biblical Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman of Persia all attempted to
annihilate the Jewish people, followed by a long sequence of enemies, massacres,
deportations, inquisitions, and pogroms characterizing Jewish history. Through
the Jewish prism, the Holocaust is the latest in this series of catastrophes (see
Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992; Hareven, 1983).
The Zionist perspective. From the Zionist perspective (the most dominant
ideology in Israel), the Holocaust was the ultimate (albeit tragic) testimony of the
impossibility of Jewish life in the Diaspora, and proof of the Zionist ideology that
Israel was the only way to ensure Jewish existence. This point of view, however,
cast retrospective blame on the Holocaust victims and the survivors who failed to
come to Israel when this was still possible. From this perspective, the Holocaust
confirmed and even reinforced the image of Diaspora Jews who went to their death
“like sheep to the slaughter” (e.g., Zertal, 2005).
The nation building and conflict framework. After WWII, the struggle
for a Jewish state in Palestine was immediately rekindled. Consequently, the
perception of the Holocaust became to a large extent subordinated to the needs
of the nation-building process and the ensuing Israeli–Arab conflict. Most of
the energy of both veteran Israelis and the incoming survivors was channeled to
the pressing issues of the present. The survivors, who arrived in Israel amidst the
1948 war, fought side by side local Israelis and shed their blood for their new
country (Yablonka, 1999). The Holocaust in Europe was portrayed soon after its
occurrence as something of the past with little relevance to the challenging present
(Shapira, 1998). In addition, for Israelis enmeshed in a difficult war with the entire
surrounding Arab world, dwelling too much upon the massive extermination of
Jews in Europe just several years earlier would have been highly intimidating. One
way of distancing the terrifying implications of the Holocaust was to portray it as
the antithesis of the Israeli condition. The Holocaust was possible—so went the
reassuring, popular account—because Diaspora Jews were unarmed, unprepared,
and unwilling to fight; Israelis, on the other hand, are fully armed, well-prepared,
and heroic.
The grand dichotomies in Holocaust discourse. Holocaust perception in
Israel during the postwar years was governed by two powerful dichotomies. One
was “Holocaust and Heroism” (Ofer, 2009; Stauber, 2007; Zertal, 2005). Heroism
during the Holocaust referred mainly to the Ghetto and concentration camps
uprisings. The small group of Ghetto fighters was symbolically separated from
The Never Again State of Israel 131
the rest of the victims. The Israeli postwar public mainly wanted to hear the story
of the fighters and not that of other survivors (Shapira, 1989).
The other dichotomy was “from Holocaust to Rebirth,” conveying the notion
that the Holocaust led to rebirth of the sovereign state of Israel. Thus, the creation
of Israel was seen as compensation for the great loss of the Holocaust. Some
survivors may have found some limited consolation in this idea, but its main aim
was giving the creation of Israel as equal symbolic weight as the Holocaust.
Thus, the Holocaust was perceived through several abstract and simplifying
conceptual prisms. It instantly became a historical event that had happened to the
“Jewish people” (in the traditional framework), or to the “Jews of the Diaspora”
(in the Zionist and national frameworks). This created a sharp distinction between
what was “there” in the Diaspora (Holocaust) and what is “here” (Heroism and
Rebirth). The testimonies of the survivors were largely absent from these pictures
and little if at all sought after.
The Encounter of Israeli Society with the Survivors
The encounter of Israeli society with Holocaust survivors was a complex
issue (Yablonka, 1999). The great reluctance or inability to hear the survivors’
stories in the first postwar decades is well-documented (e.g., Segev, 2000; Zertal,
2005). Shapira (1998) wrote: “ . . . the veterans chose not to ask . . . The new
immigrants preferred not to speak ...then the big silence set in” (p. 51). This
imposed silence was by no means unique to Israeli society. Danieli (1982, 1984)
observed a conspiracy of silence in survivors’ families in America and even
survivors’ dealings with mental health professionals (see also Solomon, 1995).
Blaming the survivors. In addition to being sometimes blamed for not
coming to Palestine when this was still possible and for not openly fighting their
persecutors, the survivors had to face another painful question: “How did you
survive?” This question was motivated by a negative and ill-informed stereotype
of the survivors: that the better and moral people were the first to perish, and that
those who survived were selfish and unscrupulous (Segev, 2000). Thus, for the
general Israeli public there was a negative aura surrounding the survivors, which
increased their tendency not to talk about their experiences.
The Merging of the Holocaust with the Core Israeli Identity
How was Holocaust transformed from a Diaspora reality into an Israeli event?
And how was it transformed from an event that was irrelevant and even contra-
dictory to the new Israeli identity to one of the major components of the Israel
heritage and identity? In the following we first discuss the internalization of the
Holocaust, starting with the Eichmann trial, and continue with the impact of the
132 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
survivors and their offspring on Israeli society. Next, we discuss the effects of the
recurring Arab–Israeli wars and the growing geopolitical threats, which led to an
erosion of the belief that Israeli heroism is an ultimate safeguard to survival and
made the Holocaust closer to the Israeli concerns.
The Internalization of the Holocaust
The Eichmann trial. The 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem is generally
considered one of the major turning points in the way that Israelis perceived the
Holocaust (e.g., Segev, 2000; Shapira, 1998; Yablonka, 2004). Over one hundred
Holocaust survivors testified at the trial, turning it into a classroom for the entire
Israeli public (who listened intensively to the radio trial’s broadcasts) and serving
as a form of “national group therapy” (Segev, 2000, p. 351). The trial also showed
officially that Israel recognized the Holocaust as part of its heritage. Perhaps most
importantly, the personal stories of the survivors underlined the human dimensions
of the Holocaust. The trial provided Israelis with a new understanding of the great
human strength and courage demanded of people just to survive in the ghetto or
camps. The allegations regarding the paucity of physical resistance, so prevalent
before the trial, gradually subsided (Ofer, 2010).
The growing impact of the survivors on Holocaust awareness. Over the
years, the survivors played a greater role in shaping Israeli Holocaust memory.
They founded museums and Holocaust memorial institutions, academic and teach-
ing programs. In later years, many survivors volunteered to be “witnesses” telling
their personal stories on commemoration days in the media, schools, and army
camps. Survivors became visible as writers, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians,
stage, and cinema artists (see Ofer, 2009).
The second and third generations. The term “second generation” was
first used by clinical psychologists looking for signs of secondary trauma among
the offspring of Holocaust survivors. In general, little evidence was found in
this regard (van Ijzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Sagi-Schwartz, 2003).
However, members of the second (and third) generation became significant carriers
of the Holocaust legacy and memory (Vardi, 1992). The impact of second and
third-generation authors, educators, and artists on public life is massive (e.g.,
Milner, 2003). With the changing social climate in Israel, many of them introduced
more humanistic and universalistic tones into Holocaust discourse in Israel, and
some were critical of the “nationalization” of the Holocaust (Gutwein, 2009).
Above all, with their unquestioned native Israeli identity they have contributed
to the perception of the Holocaust as an integral part of Israeli life. Thus, the
(Diaspora) Holocaust became “our Holocaust” (see Gutfreund, 2007).
The Never Again State of Israel 133
The Effects of Recurring Wars and Existential Threats
The Holocaust discourse in Israel reveals a fundamental Israeli existential
paradox: Israelis commonly argue that the Holocaust happened because Jews
failed to come to Palestine at the time and that the Diaspora can never be a
safe place for Jews. At the same time, Israelis are painfully aware of the fact
that Israel is one of the least safe places for Jews today. Initially, this paradox was
conceptually resolved by the assertion that Israeli independence, military strength,
and readiness to fight (allegedly absent in Diaspora life) is the ultimate safeguard of
Israel’s survival, even in a hostile environment. However, this belief has frequently
been shaken over the years. Shapira (1998) described the role of the Six-Day War
of 1967 and the Yom Kipur War of 1973 in changing the relation of Israel to the
Holocaust. The Six-Day War is remembered as a swift and glorious Israeli victory
over its Arab neighbors, but this war was preceded by a 3-week waiting period
in which Israelis and Jews all over the world listened with much trepidation to
Arab public statements that they were determined to “wipe Israel off the map,”
“drive the Jews into the sea,” etc. (Novick, 1999, p. 148). For Israelis, “the sense
of helplessness, of there being no way out, that had hitherto been identified only
with the Holocaust and life in exile was seen now as being possible in the free
Jewish state as well” (Shapira, 1998, p. 41). The Yom Kipur War, 6 years later,
further contributed to the erosion of the dichotomy between “there” and “here.”
The 1991 Gulf War provided Israelis with yet another demonstration of their
basic geopolitical vulnerability. Although Israel was not directly involved in the
Gulf crisis, the Iraqis (led by Saddam Hussein) launched missiles directed at
Israeli cities. To defend citizens against possible chemical warfare, all Israelis were
hurriedly provided with gas masks and syringe with an antidote against nerve gas,
and were instructed to seal a room in the house and wear the gas masks when sirens
were sounded. Although the number of casualties was minimal, it undermined life
in Israel for 6 weeks. Unlike previous wars, this was an antiheroic war, directed
only at the population with no Israeli military response. Family members sat
together in the “sealed rooms” in their (now unsafe) homes, waiting for the daily
strike and fearing gas attacks. Many left their homes to seek refuge in the less
vulnerable Israeli periphery. The association with the Holocaust became almost
inescapable, and it was indeed formulated excessively. To top this association,
Israelis were angered that Western companies, many of them German, were selling
Iraq war materials, including deadly chemicals. References to Europe in the past
were abundant (Zuckerman, 1993). The intimate encounter with fear, the sight
of thousands of Israelis fleeing Tel-Aviv, and the relatively calm reactions of
Holocaust survivors made the dichotomy between the “fearful Holocaust Jews”
and the “brave new Israelis” obsolete (Porat, 2008).
More recently, the developing Iranian nuclear capability has increasingly
captured Israeli fears and anxieties. The ghastly term “second Holocaust” now
134 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
Fig. 1. Four different lessons that former victims may draw from their past victimization.
appears frequently in the media and in private conversations (e.g., Morris, 2007).
Studies show that the Israeli public views Iran as an existential danger for the
survival of Israel and that Iranian nuclear capabilities are perceived as an extreme
danger (Ben Meir & Shaked, 2007). It is also noteworthy that 80% of those
questioned by Rinkevich-Pave (2008) endorsed the view that “Most Arab people
have not accepted the existence of Israel and would destroy us if they could.”
For many Israelis the Holocaust does not seem merely an issue of the past (e.g.,
Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992).
The Four Conflicting Voices of the Holocaust
What are the personal and collective lessons that Israelis draw from the Holo-
caust? Historian Yehuda Bauer suggested adding three additional commandments
to the original Ten Commandments relating to the Holocaust and other genocides:
“Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou
shalt not be a bystander” (2002, p. 67). Inspired by these moral imperatives, we
devised Figure 1, which is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and presents four
different lessons (or voices) that individuals and groups targeted by a human per-
petrated calamity such as the Holocaust may draw from the events. The first and
second voices, never to be a victim again, and never to forsake other members of
the group when they are in jeopardy, are the more particularistic voices focusing
on the protection of members of one’s own group. The third and fourth voices
voices, never to be a passive bystander when other human are in jeopardy, and
never to become a victimizer yourself are the more universalistic voices, shifting
The Never Again State of Israel 135
the focus of protection to outgroup members and even to one’s enemies or rivals.
These four voices are somewhat incompatible with each other in that protecting
another group member, nongroup members and enemies may detract from one’s
own self-preservation.
First Voice: Never Be a Passive Victim Again
This is perhaps the most dominant Holocaust voice for most Israelis (see also
Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992; Elon, 1971; Hareven, 1983). For example, Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the nation on Holocaust Remembrance
Day in 2010, saying: “’In every generation there are those who stand against us.
And in this generation we must fortify our strength and independence so that we
will be able to prevent the current enemy from carrying out its plan” (Netanyahu,
2010).
For most Israelis, building military strength is the prime lesson of the
Holocaust and this connection is often symbolically reinforced. For example,
when the first Israeli female fighter pilot was qualified, the media emphasized
that she was the granddaughter of two of the most revered leaders of the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising (Gross, 2001). In 2003 the Israeli Air force organized a ceremonial
flyover of the Auschwitz death camp. The three jets were flown by six pilots, all
descended from Holocaust survivors (O’Sullivan, 2003). Visitors at the office of
General Meir Dagan, the former head the Mosad (the Israeli intelligence agency),
could see a photograph of an old Jew standing next to a trench, a rifle aimed at
him by an SS officer. “This old Jew was my grandfather,” said Dagan. “We should
be strong, use our brain, and defend ourselves so that the Holocaust will never be
repeated” (cited in Mahnaimi, 2010).
Second Voice: Never Forsake Your Brothers
A second voice that originates from Holocaust memory revolves around
the Biblical question of “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). After the
Holocaust, the veteran Israeli community was left with troubling questions re-
garding its own conduct during the Holocaust years. Had they done everything
they could have done to save their brethren? (Segev, 2000). The sense of shame
and guilt was coupled with the conviction that the Holocaust was possible because
the Jews had no homeland, and almost no country in the world was willing to give
them shelter. Therefore, the 1950 Israeli Law of Return summarized immigration
policy in one line: “Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an ole (i.e.
Jew immigrating to Israel).” Acting on this commitment, Israel took in almost
700,000 Jewish immigrants in its first 3 years. In some cases entire communities
were airlifted to Israel in what looked like a semimilitary rescue operation, in-
volving top army units. Although urgency in some of these cases was undeniable,
136 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
these operations had a powerful symbolic message: “Now we have the ability to
rescue Jews in jeopardy and bring them to Israel. Had we had a strong independent
Jewish state at the time of the Holocaust, things might have been different.”
Third Voice: Never Be a Passive Bystander
The third voice emanating from Holocaust memory (admittedly, less power-
fully than the previous two) is related to “You shall not stand idly by the blood
of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16), an obligation that extends to every human
being in jeopardy. Israeli Holocaust memory is accompanied by a sense of moral
contempt and outrage toward the bystander nations for their lack of help during the
Holocaust (e.g., Firer, 1989). This moral outrage created a need to demonstrate that
Israelis have higher humanitarian values than other countries (e.g., Elon, 1971). In
the 1960s, Israelis took great pride in the aid and expertise it provided to dozens
of new African and Asian countries. In 1977, a group of Vietnamese refugees
stranded at sea were refused help from several ships from various countries, ex-
cept for an Israeli crew. The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin
(as the first act of his government) granted them Israeli citizenship, comparing
their situation to the plight of Jewish refugees seeking refuge during the Holocaust
(Hurwitz, 2004).
This humanitarian voice, however, sometimes clashes with other interests. For
example, in recent years there has been a stream of thousands of African refugees
and work seekers who enter the country through the Egyptian border. Few are
granted temporary refugee status (mainly those from Sudan and Eritrea), but many
are refused or detained. Israeli governments and the Israeli found themselves in
quandary: on the one hand, they are unwilling to grant the refugees permanent
status, but on the other hand many Israelis feel that it is impossible for Israel to
take steps such as deportation, which elicit associations with the countries that
closed their borders to the Jewish refugees at the time of the Holocaust (Derfner,
2008; The Combat Genocide Association, 2008).
Fourth Voice: Never Be a Perpetrator
The fourth voice emanating from the Holocaust is the moral obligation not to
harm other human beings, even if they are rivals or enemies. This voice is in fact a
derivative of the ethical Silver Rule (i.e., “Do not do unto others what you do not
want others to do unto you.” see Terry, 2004). Some former victims contemplating
on the evil done to them may also bring to mind the ensuing “do not do unto
others” clause (e.g., Staub & Vollhardt, 2008; Vollhardt, 2009).
This theme is particularly relevant in the context of the intractable Israeli–
Palestinian conflict (for a detailed account see Morris, 1999). While many Israelis
view the Israeli actions as legitimate self-defense, others are more critical of Israel’s
The Never Again State of Israel 137
role in the conflict. Whereas condemning one’s own group or feeling guilt over
its deeds is always difficult (Leach, Zeineddine, & ˇ
Cehaji´
c-Clancy, 2013; Roccas,
Klar, & Livitan, 2006; Wohl, Branscombe, & Klar, 2006; see also Imhoff, Wohl,
& Erb, 2013), it is even more difficult when a group’s past victimization (such as
the Holocaust) is made salient (Wohl & Branscombe, 2008). Nevertheless, can the
memory of the Holocaust make Israelis less tolerant of transgressions perpetrated
by Israel? This is sometimes the case. For example, on the seventieth anniversary
of the 1938 Kristallnacht, the first orchestrated attacks against Jews in Germany
and Austria, a letter to the newspaper Haaretz stated: “I was born in Berlin and
was three years old when the rioting occurred on Kristallnacht . . . For me, stories
about Kristallnacht necessarily evoke the actions of the Israeli occupation army in
the occupied territories” (Spiro, 2008). In Israel, any reference to Nazi Germany
in a context critical to Israeli conduct instantaneously enrages the Israeli public.
Consequently, many critical responses to Israeli policies toward Palestinians make
use of less specific references, such as “it is reminiscent of dark periods in history”
(e.g., Blatman, 2010).
Yet, the Holocaust memory may evoke protest against groups’ moral viola-
tions. A recent sociological study of women’s protest and human right movements
in Israel (such as Wome n in Bl ack and Makhsom Watch) found an unusually high
representation of second-generation women and even Holocaust survivors in their
eighties. A common reason for joining these activities expressed in these studies
was the fear of becoming passive bystanders “like the Germans” (Benski & Katz,
2013). Activist women said that although it is impossible to compare the Holo-
caust to the situation in the occupied territories, “we would desecrate the memory
of the Holocaust if we did not compare the processes leading to it” (Saar, 2008).
This particular Holocaust influence is also evident in protest activities of
younger Israelis. For example, Yehuda Shaul, the founder of Breaking the Silence,
a grassroots group of veteran Israeli soldiers “working to raise awareness about
the daily reality in the occupied territories” told about the army experiences that
led him to found the group:
When we entered Hebron we realized the settlers could do whatever they wanted and no
one would stop them . . . . There is a huge ideological gap between me and a person who
can walk up to an Arab’s door and spray paint the Star of David or write “Arabs out”. The
historical memory is unnerving. We all know what symbols did to Jews’ storefronts and
whose symbols those were. We all know the writing when “Arabs” is replaced with “Jews”.
We know this history. (Justvision, 2008)
Connecting Past Group Trauma to Current Conflicts: Experimental
Demonstrations
Schori-Eyal, Klar, and Roccas (2013) conducted several studies on the
Holocaust “voices.” Related to the first voice, they conceptualized the perpetual
138 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
ingroup victimhood orientation (PIVO), the belief that one’s group is persecuted
continually by different enemies (see also Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992; Vollhardt,
2009; Wohl & Branscombe, 2008). PIVO involves a sense of ongoing threat that
links past and present. Contemporary enemies are experienced as a reincarnation
of former adversaries. High levels of PIVO involve a strong belief in the unique-
ness of the group’s trauma, unparalleled by the painful experiences of any other
group, and a strong sense of mistrust of outgroups. The construct was measured
using a 12-item scale (e.g., All our enemies throughout history share a common
denominator—the will to annihilate us). This scale was tested on multiple sam-
ples and was found to have high reliability. Before answering the questionnaire,
respondents were asked to recall an event in which the ingroup was harmed by
another group. The most commonly mentioned event (mentioned by 40– 50% of
respondents, depending on the sample) was the Holocaust.
The second construct in these studies was the fear of victimizing (FOV), which
is related to the fourth voice. This is the fear that due to past suffering, one’s group
may loose its moral sensitivity to the plight of its adversaries. FOV was measured
using a 10-item scale (sample item: We are in danger of treating other people in
the same way that we were treated by our worst enemies). FOV was also found to
have high reliability.
In a series of studies, PIVO and FOV were both found to be associated with
a variety of intergroup outcomes, including a sense of moral entitlement, group-
based guilt, behavioral tendencies, and cognitive processes. PIVO was positively
correlated and FOV negatively correlated with a sense of moral entitlement: the
belief that one’s group is allowed to do anything in self-defense, even commit acts
that can be considered moral transgressions (e.g., Harming innocents is certainly
justified when our existence is being threatened). Moral entitlement was shown
to mediate the relationship between PIVO as well as FOV and outcome variables
such as group-based guilt and moral decision making: the higher the sense of
moral entitlement, the less group-based guilt was experienced over harm caused
to enemy outgroup members and the greater the support was for actions that result
in severe damage to outgroup civilians (Schori-Eyal et al., 2013). The results
indicate that the Holocaust still plays a role in Jewish–Israelis’ attitudes, emotions,
and behavioral tendencies in relation to current conflicts. The first voice (“never
be a victim again”) as reflected by PIVO is associated with greater willingness
to engage in morally questionable actions against enemy outgroup members and
lessened group-based guilt over the results of such actions (see also Wohl &
Branscombe, 2008). In contrast, FOV, which reflects the fourth voice (“never be a
perpetrator”), is associated with greater moral sensitivity and greater group-based
guilt.
PIVO and FOV were also found to affect several cognitive processes such as
memory and categorization. In one study (Schori-Eyal, 2013), participants were
asked to categorize national-ethnic groups according to two criteria: a neutral
The Never Again State of Israel 139
criterion and a “hostility” criterion (whether or not the group was hateful toward
Israel). PIVO was associated with categorizing more outgroups as hostile and with
shorter response times when using the hostility criterion compared to the neutral
criterion. The higher the level of PIVO, the longer it took participants to declare a
group “non-hostile.”
In other studies (Schori-Eyal, 2011), participants read descriptions of histor-
ical persecution and attacks against ingroup members. They were then presented
with several open-ended stories describing ambiguous social interactions between
ingroup and outgroup members, followed by three endings for each story, repre-
senting either hostile, neutral, or benevolent intentions of the outgroup actors. With
higher levels of PIVO, participants tended to attribute more hostile intentions to
outgroup members in these situations. When reminded of historical group trauma,
high-PIVO participants attributed more negative intentions to outgroup members
compared to the unreminded group. Low-PIVO participants reminded of historical
group trauma attributed fewer hostile intentions to outgroup members. Thus, the
“first voice” (operationalized by the PIVO measure) affects the way intergroup
interactions are interpreted, and increases the attribution of hostile intentions to
outgroup members.
PIVO and FOV are both associated with memory biases in intergroup conflict.
In the study by Schori-Eyal et al. (2013), participants read about the plight of a
family in Gaza whose home was hit by an IDF missile, and were later asked to recall
the text and answer a series of questions. The higher the level of PIVO was, the less
accurately participants recalled details of information they had read earlier. Both
details of the damage and trivial information were affected, indicating that PIVO
acted as a filter that deflected participants’ attention to all types of information
about the outgroup. In contrast, the higher FOV was, the more accurately the
information about the Palestinian family was recalled.
These studies indicate that the “never be a victim again” voice is associated
with a perception of rival outgroups as hostile, and with downplaying damage to
outgroup members. The “never be a victimizer” voice, on the other hand, is related
to a more accurate perception of the suffering of other groups (see also Vollhardt,
2013).
In another study (Schori-Eyal, 2011), participants were subliminally primed
with either a neutral stimulus or a reminder of group trauma (swastika). They
then completed a measure of group-based guilt toward the Palestinians. High but
not low PIVO participants experienced less group-based guilt when primed with
group trauma compared with a neutral prime. High but not low FOV participants
experienced more group-based guilt when primed with group trauma compared
with the neutral prime. These findings indicate that implicit reminders of trauma
may strengthen each of the two voices. If the perception of eternal victimhood
is predominant, subliminal reminders of trauma reinforce this belief, resulting in
less group-based guilt about harming others. If fear of victimizing is predominant,
140 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
subliminal reminders of trauma increase this perception, resulting in more group-
based guilt.
Conclusion
Israelis (those who did not experience the Holocaust personally) very slowly
and reluctantly acknowledged the Holocaust as part of their collective identity.
For them, the Holocaust represented the ultimate realization of the tragic Jewish
destiny in the Diaspora, the destiny they had sought to break away from. Thesocial
and historical processes by which the Holocaust was gradually turned into a core
feature in the Israeli identity are complex and multilayered, and we could only
briefly touch here upon some of them. Time was involved in several processes,
such as the growing impact of the survivors on Holocaust awareness, and the
role of second and third generations who were born in Israel yet unashamed in
their Holocaust heritage. Israel’s difficult geopolitical situation and the recurring
wars also had enormous effects on the continued impact of the Holocaust on
Israeli collective identity. One dominant voice of the Holocaust is to Never be
a victim again, which many Israelis learned to identify as a source of resilience
and inventiveness. And there are also the other Holocaust voices urging group
members to become better human beings and, even more difficult, to refrain
from victimizing other groups. These different voices are often incongruent and
disharmonic. It seems that the future vitality of the Israeli society—and probably
of any other society that survives massive trauma—greatly depends on how well
these voices will be orchestrated and played.
References
Arian, A. (2012). A portrait of Israeli Jews: Beliefs, observance, and values of Israeli Jews, 2009.
Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel Democracy Institute and the AVI CHAI– Israel Foundation.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Likhiot im ha-sikhsukh [Living with the conflict: Socio-psychological analysis of
the Jewish society in Israel]. Jerusalem, Israel: Carmel.
Bar-Tal, D., & Antebi, D. (1992). Siege mentality in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations,16, 251–275. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(92)90052-V
Bauer, Y. (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ben-Amos, A. & Bet-El, I. (1999). Holocaust Day and Memorial Day in Israeli schools: Ceremonies,
education and history. Israel Studies,4, 258–284.
Ben Meir, Y., & Shaked, D. (2007). The people speak: Israeli public opinion on national security
2005-2007. Memorandum No. 90. Tel Aviv, Israel: Institute for National Security Studies.
Benski, T., & Katz, R. (2013). Women’s peace activism in Israel and the reversal of the hegemonic
Holocaust discourse in Israel. In I. Levine, C. Lenz, O. Kopperud, & M. L. Seeberg (Eds.),
Active memory: Public and private perspectives. Oslo, Norway: Unipub publishing.
Bilewicz, M., & Jaworska, M. (2013). Reconciliation through the righteous: The narratives of heroic
helpers as a fulfillment of emotional needs in Polish-Jewish intergroup contact. Journal of
Social Issues,69, 162–179.
Blatman, D. (2010). 1932 is already here. Haaretz. Available online http://www.haaretz.com/
print-edition/opinion/1932-is-already-here-1.332974 (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
The Never Again State of Israel 141
Cohen, E. H. (2010). Hora’at Ha-shoah be-batei sefer mamlakhtiyim be-Israel: Mekhkar
khinukhi 2007–2009 [Teaching the Holocaust in Israeli State Schools: An educational
study 2007–2009. School of Education.] Bar Ilan University, Israel. Available online
http://education.biu.ac.il/files/education/%201_.pdf (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Danieli, Y. (1982). Families of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust: Some short- and long-term effects. In
C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, & N. Milgram (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 8, pp. 405–421).
New York: McGraw-Hill/Hemisphere.
Danieli, Y. (1984). Psychotherapists’ participation in the conspiracy of silence about the Holocaust.
Psychoanalytic Psychology,1, 23–42.
Derfner, L. (2008). African refugees pose a dilemma for Israel. US News and World Report. Available
online http://www.usnews.com (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Edim Bemadim (2011). Matrot ha-mishlakhat [Goals of the delegation]. Available online
http://www.aka.idf.il/edim/theProj/TheProj.asp (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Elon, A. (1971). The Israelis: Founders and sons. London, U.K.: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Feldman, J. (2008). Above the death pits, beneath the flag: Youth voyages to Polandand the performance
of Israeli national identity. New York: Berghahn.
Feldman, S. Y. (1992). Whose story is it anyway? Ideology and psychology in the representation of the
Shoah in Israeli literature. In S. Friedlander (Ed.), Probing the limits of representation: Nazism
and the ‘final solution’ (pp. 223–239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Firer, R. (1989). Sokhnim shel ha-lekakh [Agents of Holocaust lesson]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Hakibbutz
Hameuchad.
Gertz, N. (2004). Mak’hela Aheret [Holocaust survivors, aliens and others in Israeli cinema and
literature]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved.
Grodzinsky, Y. (2004). In the shadow of the Holocaust: The struggle between Jews and Zionists in the
aftermath of World War II. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Gross, T. (2001). Female fighter pilot joins Israel’s top guns. Telegraph. Available online
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1333264/Female-fighter-pilot-
joins-Israels-top-guns.html (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Gutfreund, A. (2007). Our Holocaust. New Milford, CT: Toby Press.
Gutwein, D. (2009). The privatization of the holocaust: memory, historiography, and politics. Israel
Studies,14, 36–64. doi: 10.1353/is.0.0024
Hareven, A. (1983). Victimization: Some comments by an Israeli. Political Psychology,4, 145–155.
Hazan, H. (2001). Simulated dreams: Israeli youth and virtual zionism. New York: Berghahn.
Hurwitz, H. Z. (2004). Begin, his life, words, and deeds. Jerusalem, Israel: Gefen.
Imhoff, R., Wohl, M. J. A., & Erb, H.-P. (2013). When the past is far from dead: How ongoing
consequences of genocides committed by the ingroup impact collective guilt. Journal of Social
Issues,69, 74–91.
Justvision (2008). Interview with Yehuda Shaul. Available online http://www.justvision.org/he/ por-
trait/76159/highlights (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Katz-Freiman, T. (2003). Don’t touch my Holocaust – analyzing the barometer of responses: Israeli
artists challenging the Holocaust taboo. In S. Hornstein, L. Levitt, & L. J. Silberstein (Eds.),
Impossible images: Contemporary art after the Holocaust (pp. 129–154). New York: New York
University Press.
Leach, C. W., Bou Zeineddine, F., & ˇ
Cehaji´
c-Clancy, S. (2013). Moral immemorial: The rarity of
self-criticism for previous generation’s genocide or mass violence. Journal of Social Issues,
69, 34–53.
Liebman, C. S., & Don-Yihya, E. (1983). Civil religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism and political
culture in the Jewish state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mahnaimi, U. (2010). Meir Dagan: The mastermind behind Mossad’s secret war. The Sunday
Times. Available online http://sudhan.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/meir-dagan-the-mastermind-
behind-mossads-secret-war/ (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Milner, I. (2003). Kire’y Avar:Biographia, Ze’hut Vezicharon Be’siporet Ha-dor ha-sheni [Past present:
Biography, identity and memory in second generation literature]. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Am Oved.
Morris, B. (1999). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881–1998.NewYork:
Knopf.
142 Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar
Morris, B. ( 2007). The Second Holocaust. The New York Sun. Available online http://www.nysun.com
(Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
National Library of Israel (2011). Israeli book statistics. Available online http://jnul.huji.ac.il/
eng/lgd-statistics-2011.html#netunim (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Netanyahu, B. (2010). Prime Minister Benjamin Neytanyahu’s speech at the Holocaust and Heroes’ Re-
membrance Day ceremony. Available online http://en.netanyahu.org.il (Downloaded January
6, 2013.)
Novick, P. (1999). The Holocaust in American life. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ofer, D. (1996). “Israel.” In D. S. Wyman (Ed.), The world reacts to the Holocaust (pp. 839–923).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ofer, D. (2009). The past that does not pass: Israelis and Holocaust memory. Israel Studies,14, 1–35.
doi: 10.1353/is.0.0023
Ofer, D. (2010). Victims, fighters, survivors: Quietism and activism in Israeli historical consciousness.
Common Knowledge,16, 493–517. doi: 10.1215/0961754X-2010-008
Oron, Y. (1993). Ze’hut Ye’hudit-Isra’elit [Jewish Israeli identity]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Sifriat Poalim.
O’Sullivan, A. (2003). IAF Jets fly over Auschwitz: Commemorate Holocaust victims. Available
online http://www.israelnewsagency.com (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Porat, D. (2008). Israeli society, the Holocaust and its survivors. London, U.K.: Vallentine Mitchell.
Rinkevich-Pave,A. (2008). Presence of the Holocaust in Jewish Israelis’ day-to-day lives. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national
identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,91, 698–711. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698
Saar, T. (2008). Lo mukhanot la’amod mineged kmo ha-germanim [Unwilling to stand aloof
like the Germans]. Haaretz. Available online http://www.mouse.co.il/CM.articles_item,
1050,209,22728,.aspx (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Schori-Eyal, N. (2011). The shadows of the past: Effects of historical group trauma on cur-
rent intergroup conflicts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv,
Israel.
Schori-Eyal, N., Klar, Y., & Roccas, S. (2012). Perpetual victim or future victimizer: Possible outcomes
of group trauma. Paper submitted for publication.
Schuman, H., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Vinokur, A. D. (2003). Keeping the past alive: Memo-
ries of Israeli Jews at the turn of the millennium. Sociological Forum,18, 103–136. doi:
10.1023/A:1022606912871
Segev, T. (2000). The seventh million: Israelis and the Holocaust. New York: Holt.
Shapira, A. (1989). Ha-halikha al kav ha-ofek [Going toward the horizon]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved.
Shapira, A. (1998). The Holocaust: Private memories, public memory. Jewish Social Studies,4,
40–58.
Solomon, Z. (1995). From denial to recognition: Attitudes toward Holocaust survivors from World
War II to the present. Journal of Traumatic Stress,8, 15–228. doi: 10.1007/BF02109559
Staub, E., & Vollhardt, J. (2008). Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping af-
ter victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,78, 267–280. doi:
10.1037/a0014223
Stauber, R. (2007). The Holocaust in Israeli public debate in the 1950s: Ideology and memory. London,
U.K.: Vallentine Mitchell.
Spiro, G. (2008). Similar situations [Letter to the Editor]. Haaretz. Available online
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1037100.html (Downloaded January 6, 2013.)
Terry, H. (2004). Golden rules and silver rules of humanity: Universal wisdom of civilization. Bloom-
ington, IN: Author House.
The Combat Genocide Association (2008). Sudan Refugees Aid Plan 2008. The Combat Genocide
Association: Tel Aviv, Israel.
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2003). Are children of
Holocaust survivors less well-adapted? A meta-analytic investigation of secondary traumati-
zation. Journal of Traumatic Stress,16, 459–469. doi: 10.1023/A:1025706427300
Vardi, D. (1992). Memorial candles: Children of the Holocaust. New York: Routledge.
The Never Again State of Israel 143
Vollhardt, J. R. (2009). The role of victim beliefs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Risk or po-
tential for peace? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,15, 135–159. doi:
10.1080/10781919.2011.561185
Vollhardt, J. R. (2013). “Crime against humanity” or “crime against Jews”? Acknowledgment in
construals of the Holocaust and its importance for intergroup relations. Journal of Social
Issues,69, 144–161.
Wohl,M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for
current ingroup transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94, 988–1006.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.988
Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when
one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology,17,
1–37. doi: 10.1080/10463280600574815
Yablonka, H. (1999). Survivors of the Holocaust: Israel after the War. New York: New York University
Press.
Yablonka, H. ( 2004). The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Schocken Publishing
House.
Zandberg, E. (2006). Critical laughter: Humor, popular culture and Israeli Holocaust commemoration.
Media, Culture & Society,28, 561–579. doi: 10.1177/0163443706065029
Zelikovitz, M. (2010). Me-al me’a elef khotmim: tnu linso’a le-Polin [More than 100 thousand signers:
Make it possible to go to Poland]. Ynet. Available online http://www.ynet.co.il/ (Downloaded
January 6, 2013.)
Zertal, I. (2005). Israel’s Holocaust and the politics of nationhood. Cambridge, U.K.: Camridge
University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1993). Shoah ba-kheder ha-a’tum: ha-“shoah” ba-I’tonut ha-israelit be-tkufat
milkhemet ha-mifrats [Shoah in the sealed room: The “Holocaust” in Israeli press during
the Gulf War]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Hamechaber.
YECHIEL KLAR is Associate Professor of social psychology in the School of
Psychological Sciences at Tel Aviv University. His research on judgment, choice,
and decision processes is currently funded by Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
and the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (SSF). His research
on political and moral discourse in societies affected by enduring ethnopolitical
conflict and the role of historical memory in this discourse is currently funded by
the Germany-Israel Foundation (GIF).
NOA SCHORI-EYAL earned her BA in Psychology (2004), MA in Clinical Psy-
chology (2008), and PhD in Social Psychology (2001) from Tel Aviv University.
She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Psychology, University
of Maryland in College Park. Her main research interest is in the effects of histor-
ical group traumas on reactions to current intergroup conflicts. Her most recent
research focuses on goal systems.
YONAT KLAR earned her BA from the University of Connecticut and is currently
completing her MA in gender studies at TelAviv University. She has been involved
for many years in Holocaust education in Israel and North America, and is active
in women’s empowerment groups in the Jewish and Arab communities in Israel.