At the opening of the forum, Carmit Gai noted that the Ministry of Immigration and Absorption cast doubt on the reliability of the figures on FSU immigrants compiled in IDI’s 2009 Israeli Democracy Index, but stressed that although ministry representatives were invited to take part in the discussion and present their own data, they chose not to attend this Roundtable event.
The findings of the survey, which was conducted among 1,200 respondents in March 2009, were presented by Anna Knafelman and Michael Philippov. The survey revealed a particularly high rate of support for ‘strong leaders’ among FSU immigrants. “Seventy-four percent of FSU immigrants surveyed said they support this type of leadership, compared to 60% of respondents defined as ‘veteran Jewish citizens’ and just 50% of those surveyed among the Arab Israeli population. Furthermore, a relatively high percentage of FSU survey participants believed that they and others like them have ‘no impact on government policy.’”
One of the notable findings of the survey related to the attitude of survey participants toward the Arab sector: Seventy-seven percent of FSU respondents reported that they back encouraging Arab Israeli citizens to emigrate, compared to 47% of “veteran Jewish citizens.” A high rate of FSU respondents backed denying Arab Israeli citizens the right to vote for and serve in the Israeli Knesset, though a similar rate was found among “veteran Jewish” respondents.
The survey also showed that 52% of FSU immigrants who described themselves as “traditional” support the claim that the husband should be the sole breadwinner in the family, while the wife should avoid going out to work and should, instead, stay home to tend to household affairs. Among immigrants who called themselves “secular,” 44% supported this idea, compared to a rate of just 9% within the secular population of “veteran Jewish citizens.” The findings also showed that most FSU respondents would like to continue living in Israel, though a large portion of immigrants “still see themselves as Soviets.” According to Philippov, these findings are not contradictory.
Yaakov Kedmi, who recently resigned from his position as head of the Nativ Zionist organization, did not dispute the findings and claimed that, like every segments of the population that views itself on the periphery, these immigrants are also characterized by a lack of faith in the State and in their ability to effect change and impact the country, as well as to improve their own standing. He said the main point of contention between FSU immigrants and the Israeli establishment is in the area of education, because they (immigrants) “cannot accept the sub-standard level of education in Israel and have tried to create an education system of their own.”
Alex Selsky, who is in charge of Russian-language communication at the Jewish Agency, holds that too frequently the Zionist ideologies of FSU immigrants are overlooked. Especially notable is the stereotypical perception that many FSU immigrants are not Jewish – according to both the Orthodox definition, as well as the immigrant’s self definition. He believes many of the social, economic and identity problems among FSU immigrants stem from the questioning of their Jewishness.
Inda Kriksunov, immigrant coordinator at SHATIL, suggested a distinction be drawn between FSU immigrants who arrived in Israel in the 1970s and those who came in the 1990s and later. In her view, longstanding Israeli citizens have succeeded in integrating into Israeli society, but the larger Aliya from the 1990s encountered difficulties from the start. MK Marina Solodkin of the Kadima Party claimed the level of representation of FSU immigrants in the Knesset points to their successful integration in Israeli society. She added that the high rate of respondents who held hawkish views stems from the fact the Russian population is accustomed to speaking the bare truth, not concealing political views, unlike the rest of the Israeli population.
Chief Inspector Alex Kagalsky, head of the police’s Russian-speaking desk, was asked to discuss the claim that FSU immigration brought with it considerable crime. He said the fact that the State of Israel does not fund supplementary education for children and youth has contributed to the neglect of the younger generation in the FSU community. He also claimed that the perception that the FSU community suffers from a higher crime rate than other segments of society is an outcome of tainted media representation, which deals with stereotypes rather than concrete facts.
Prof. Yedidia Stern, IDI Vice President, said the question of the Jewishness of FSU immigrants poses a significant challenge for Jewish society in Israel, which, if not properly solved, would create a severe social problem. He said one-third of the one million FSU immigrants are not Jewish according to the State of Israel – in accordance with halacha – and that this number is rising. As a result, within a generation Israel would have one million people identified as Soviet Jews, but who the State of Israel would not recognize as such. The solution, he said, must be through a conversion option that is both universally available and which actively reaches out to candidates.
Dr. Michael Yedovitsky, head of the Jewish Agency’s education department for Russian speakers abroad, agreed with the claim that the issue of conversion requires a comprehensive solution. He went on to say that official bodies made numerous mistakes in the process of absorbing FSU immigrants into Israeli society. In the Israeli education system, for instance, there are no teachers trained as instructors of Hebrew as a second language, and as a result entire generations – from all waves of Aliya, including immigration from other continents and time periods – are semi-lingual. (i.e. they do not have full command of any language). They may have left the Russian sphere behind, but they lack mastery of Russian in the true sense of the word, and they have not properly acquired a mastery of Hebrew.
Natalia Kanevsky, a reporter and editor at Kol Yisrael, also holds that Hebrew is one of the primary obstacles standing in the way of FSU immigrants’ full integration into Israeli society. Kanevsky added that Russia’s rehabilitation following the fall of communism created an identity crisis among many immigrants. When Putin rose to power, Russia began to resume its position as a superpower, and people who came from the Soviet Union during its period of weakness suddenly saw that the country was reclaiming its lost honor. From the year 2000 they began to identify with Russia’s new, strong leader and with its success in getting back on its feet. During that same period Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister. Kanevsky sees the two developments as interrelated.
Dr. Arye Carmon, IDI president, said the problems encountered in the absorption of FSU immigrants in Israel are not exclusive to this wave of immigration. The difference, however, is in the fact that in this case Israel’s veteran citizens are aware that one-third of the wave of FSU Aliya is not recognized as Jewish. This is an enormous constraint in their integration. Dr. Carmon said Prof. Stern’s remarks should be duly considered and that society is not doing enough on the issue of conversion.
**Rapporteur: Mr. Itamar Baz