Abstract: The Holocaust has had a considerable impact on the development of the Jewish ethos in recent generations. This may explain some of its influence on political action based on perceptions of the Holocaust and its conclusions. For generations, awareness of the Holocaust in Israel served as a rationale for the existence of the state and the strengthening of its military. It provided the grounds on which to justify security decisions and to maintain a solidifying and unifying ethos built by the state. In the 1980s, this interpretation began to change: tension arose between a national interpretation and a liberal interpretation of the Holocaust. At the same time, a different Holocaust consciousness developed in the American Jewish diaspora. While awareness of the Holocaust among Israeli Jews was harnessed for certain purposes, awareness of the Holocaust among American Jews was translated differently. Among members of the third generation of American Jews, we note a decrease in support for Israeli policies and a deteriorating identification with the Jewish sovereign center in Israel. The article explains this phenomenon in light of the change in the American Jewish interpretation of the Holocaust: its growing identification with the liberal-progressive world of values, a nd its lesser identification with the Jewish ethos as expressed in Israeli society. These have led to a weakening of support for Israeli policies in the territories and Israel’s positions in relation to the Palestinians – which is in turn reflected in Israel’s status among American Jews and ultimately impacts Israel’s national resilience.

Abstract: American Jews have long been an anomaly for scholars concerned with understanding how they fit into extant social scientific or historical categories. Sometimes they seem best described as an ethnic group, other times as a religious one. This ambiguity has also vexed Jewish communal leaders whose desire to comprehend their communities has largely been underwritten by their intention to protect it. This intersection of sociological methods and schema and Jewish communal concerns has resulted in decisive omissions regarding how best to account for the racial and ethnic diversity of American Jews. An analysis of survey instruments used in 175 American Jewish population studies and community portraits conducted since 1970 reveals a focus on questions of religious practice and an avoidance of those about race and ethnicity, resulting in a “religio-racial formation” of American Jews as White. This approach to studying American Jewish life has marginalized or excluded non-White Jews while ensuring ongoing Jewish communal access to Whiteness without having to claim it explicitly.

Abstract: Lehava is an extreme right-wing Israeli movement that attracts mostly traditional Mizrahi youth; its stated goal is to combat intermarriage. The article addresses the following questions: What attracts members to the organization? How does it operate? Where is it located within the Israeli ethno-national sphere? And where should it be positioned in a global comparative view? Research methods included participant observation, ethnographic interviews and a survey of social media. It was found that Lehava combines modes of activity typical of Israeli Haredi organizations devoted to combating intermarriage with those of extreme right-wing urban movements. Three dominant discourses were identified among supporters: a militant-nationalist discourse concerning Arab men, a therapeutic discourse used when referring to the members themselves and to the women they are seeking to “save,” and a religious discourse that supports the other two. Attitudes identified among religious Mizrahi Jews in Israel were found to be prominent in Lehava as well. It is also asserted that the organization’s resistance to intermarriage with Arabs can be explained as an attempt to preserve “family honor.” A comparative analysis underscored how the religious and therapeutic discourses, alongside the ethnic identity of members, differentiate Lehava from Western fascist movements and point to affinities with Eastern European and Muslim extremist organizations.

Abstract: In 2002–2005, salvage excavations were conducted at the site located in the central and southern parts of Moshav Kerem Maharal, on the southwestern slopes of the Carmel range (Fig. 1). From the Arab village Ijzim on the summit of the northern hill survived the remains of a two-story building (Sheikh’s house), which according to its style was built in the Ottoman period (probably the seventeenth century CE); it still incorporates some ancient architectural elements (Figs. 2–4).On the northern hill, two squares were excavated in each lot designated for construction (Areas A–E, H, I, K, L; Fig. 5; Table 1); in some areas the excavation reached the bedrock at a depth of 3.5 m below surface, cutting eight occupation layers. About 10% of the summit of the northern hill (15–20 dunams) was excavated. The excavations on the southern hill were conducted only in the lots and on the road connecting them (c. 35 dunams; Areas F1–23; Fig. 5), only where archaeological remains were detected in preliminary test trenches dug mechanically. In most of the area of the southern hill, bedrock was reached close to the surface (up to a depth of 0.5 m).The excavations revealed agricultural installations, quarries, rock-cuttings, cisterns, tombs, including a burial cave, and cup marks from 12 occupation layers (ten periods; Figs. 6–21; Plans 1–25; Appendix 1): Stratum XII, the Geometric Kebaran period (fourteenth–thirteenth millennia BP; see Marder, this volume); Strata XI–X, the Persian–early Hellenistic periods (sixth–fourth centuries BCE); Stratum IX, the Roman period (late first–early second century CE); Strata VIII–VII, the Byzantine period (fifth–seventh centuries CE); Stratum VI, the late Byzantine–beginning of the Early Islamic periods (seventh–eighth centuries CE); Stratum V, eleventh century CE; Stratum IV, twelfth–thirteenth centuries CE; Stratum III, the Mamluk period (late thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE); Stratum II, the Ottoman and British Mandate periodS (until 1948); Stratum I, the modern era (after 1948). The pottery, glass and numismatic finds from these strata are discussed by Gendelman and Sai’d, this volume; Cytryn-Silverman, this volume; Katsnelson, this volume; and Kool, this volume. Additional periods are represented at the site by pottery alone: the Chalcolithic period, Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age II (tenth–seventh centuries BCE), the Hellenistic period (fourth–third centuries BCE; see Gendelman and Sa’id, this volume), and from the Early Islamic period (ninth–tenth centuries CE; see Cytryn-Silverman, this volume).The results of the excavations attest that Moshav Kerem Maharal is a multi-period site, occupied almost continuously from the Byzantine period to the modern era. During periods, there was also some activity to the north, east and west of the excavated areas. The Kerem Maharal site was an important rural site in Lower Carmel, and perhaps in the entire Carmel region during these periods.From the findings it can be deduced that in prehistoric and protohistoric times—the Geometric Kebaran and the Chalcolithic period—the site was located mainly on the southern hill, although similar cup marks were also discovered in the southern part of the northern hill. During the Persian period, and perhaps also at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the settlement extended over most of the eastern slope of the northern hill. The settlement from the Roman period was exposed in the same area, but it seems to have been limited, and it is possible that it was mostly licated in the center of the site (Areas B–H). During these periods, the settlement’s cemetery was located on the southern hill, possibly also on the hill to the east of the site.During the Byzantine period, the settlement reached its peak. The northern hill was densely inhabited and according to the architectural remains, it appears that at the top of the hill (Areas F and F2) stood a large public building. The southern hill served as an industrial area, which included winepresses (one of which was a complex winepress), quarries and other installations whose function was not clear. In the Early Islamic period, the settlement at the site diminished in size and its remains were found only on the eastern slope, north of Area H.During the Mamluk period, the site flourished once again, and it extended over the entire northern hill and in several locations on the southern hill. The construction quality in this period was poorer than that of the Byzantine period, apart from the large structure that stood on the hill summit.In the Late Ottoman period, and possibly even in its earlier stages, the settlement extended over both hills, where dwellings were built. The large extent of this settlement is further attested by the location of the cemetery (Area F23) in the middle of the settlement, indicating its expansion beyond its previous boundaries. The oil press in Area C attests to the cultivation of olives and the production of olive oil during the Ottoman period. The crushing basin was probably reused, perhaps from the Byzantine period; therefore, it is probable that this economic branch had also existed during this period.The settlement at the site was rural in nature. It seems that throughout the periods the residents engaged in agriculture, as can be seen from the vast agricultural installations that were exposed. The large number of winepresses indicates the extensive cultivation of vines and wine production. The agricultural activities continued into the sixteenth century CE and later. Based on the ceramic finds and the petrographic analyses, it seems that the inhabitants of the site maintained close ties mainly with their immediate surroundings.The excavations at Kerem Maharal were the first to reveal a large-scale multi-period site in the Carmel range, as opposed to other nearby sites, such as ‘Usfiyya and Daliyat el-Karmel, where only a few excavations were conducted in limited areas, and the remains were poorly preserved.

Abstract: In July 2011, an excavation was conducted in the southwestern part of the city of Yehud, c. 300 m north of Road 461, in an area known as Ashkenazi Market (Fig. 1). Several archaeological excavations have been undertaken nearby, revealing construction remains, installations and tombs from the Chalcolithic to the Ottoman periods. In the present excavation, 85 squares were opened, and remains from several periods (Plans 1–3) were discovered.The remains from the Chalcolithic period included two wide and deep shafts that contained pottery vessels and flint artifacts chracteristic of the Late Chalcolithic period (see Lupu, this volume; Fig. 2). Such shafts were previously documented in Yehud and Tel Aviv, and they were reused as refuse pits. So far, no settlement remains from the Chalcolithic period have been unearthed at Yehud. Based on the distribution of the pits and shafts at Yehud, it can be concluded that this area was the periphery of a large settlement, where waste dumping and possibly industrial activities were carried out.Finds from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, and from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, are scarce (Fig. 11). No architectural remains survived, and the ceramic assemblage is small. From the Early Roman period, pottery, glass and stone vessels were exposed, indicating activity at the site (Fig. 12; see Gorin-Rosen, this volume). The finds dating from the period between the two Jewish revolts and later in the second century CE reflect continuity, although no architectural remains could be attributed to this phase.In the Middle–Late Roman period (second–third centuries CE), an industrial area operated at the site, mainly for the production of pottery. Five pottery kilns were found in two areas (L633, L635, L725, L761, L771; Plan 3; Figs. 3–6), and another kiln was probably used in the metal industry (L808; Fig. 7). The pottery kilns are of the round type, with a central pillar from which arches emerge (Plan 2). The kilns produced household vessels, such as bowls, cooking pots, jugs and juglets (Figs. 12, 13). The remains of glass industry might point to the existence of a glass workshop at the site (see Gorin-Rosen, this volume). Between the pottery kilns were the remains of a structure that was probably related to the operation of the kilns, or for storage (Fig. 8). The fills in and above the structure included animal bones (see Agha, this volume).In the Byzantine period, the kilns were filled in, sealed and leveled with a plaster floor. Buildings that probably served as dwellings (Fig. 9) were exposed at the site, alongside pottery vessels (Figs. 14–16) and contemporary coins (studied by Donald T. Ariel), and refuse pits. Despite the poor preservation, overall planning is evident in the mostly east–west orientation of the architectural remains. Next to the Byzantine buildings were the scanty remains of an Early Islamic settlement, dated by the pottery finds (Fig. 17).The site was resettled in the Late Ottoman period. The remains included buildings, refuse pits and cesspits (Fig. 10) of the Arab village el-Yehudiya (Abbasia). Pottery (Fig. 18), pipes (studied by Lior Rauchberger; Fig. 19), metal objects and jewelry (Fig. 20), were found from this phase.

Abstract: Some of the landmarks in the history of French Jews in modern timeshave experienced encounters between Ashkenazi and Sefardi jews. Aunique seminary that was erected in Paris ("Orsay") after the SecondWorld War is an experience of this kind. Rabbi Y.L. Ashkenazi(Manitou), who presided this meeting, points to the dynamics ofsociology and the identity system that emerge from it. Manitouemphasizes that "the encounter between the Ashkenazim and theSephardim was very important. In those days, it was a very positiveexperience. At the micro-sociology level, the Ashkenazi and SefardiJewish communities met. Two Jewish dynasties that separated forhundreds of years met with admiration and glory", in his own words.This Beit Midrash provided an educational and conceptual response toShoah refugees on the one hand and to the Ashkenazi members of thepre-war French jewish community, on the other. These two weresubject to existential distress and the slippery slope of assimilation.Their encounter with Rabbi Ashkenazi teachings, that derived from theteachings of Algerian scholars and the Sefardi diaspora, resulted in therestoration of their Jewish identity and the acquisition of tools fordealing with the challenges of modern Jewish existence, as evidencedby students such as Georges Weiss, Stefan Moses, Pierre Simsovic,Miriam Doress-Herr, Francine Kaufmann and Marcel Goldman. Myarticle therefore discusses the general and personal nature of thisintersectional encounter

Abstract: Since the beginning of scholarship on this subject, scholars have cast doubt on the historical credibility of the description of the results of the Bar Kokhba war in the Roman History of Cassius Dio. At the base of the discussion lie the meaning of the term Judea, the scope of the revolt and the area which was destroyed following it, as well as the estimate of the settlement sites and the population of the country in the period under discussion. The examination of the demographic data presented by Cassius has so far been based mainly on the results of archaeological surveys and excavations conducted and published during the previous century. In this article, we would like to summarize the abundant archaeological evidence that has been added over the recent years, and to reevaluate the demographic data presented by Cassius. Due to methodological difficulties in estimating the country’s population in ancient times, the focus will be on the question of the number of settlements destroyed in the war: fifty forts and 985 villages. The findings of the current study illustrate the potential of the archaeological findings and support those scholars who viewed Cassius Dio’s demographic data as are liable report based on contemporary documents.

Abstract: Migdal Tzedek National Park is located on the western flank of the Samarian hills, east ofIsrael’s coastal plain. There are natural and man-made cavities in the region. The man-madeones are concentrated in a small area next to the local fortress, whereas the natural onesare located in many places in the Samaria hills. A survey of cavities was conducted in theMigdal Tzedek area in 2017 and 2018. The survey focused on the area west of the MigdalTzedek tower and the main hills at the site. A total of 118 sites were identified during thesurvey – mostly man-made cavities and additional ones related to human activity, such aspools of water, cupmarks and quarries. Most of the cavities discovered are cisterns andburial cavities, representing most periods of activity at the site. The cavities can be dividedinto several main types: 57 water cisterns,3 burial cavities associated with the SecondTemple period, 11 arcosolium tombs and 10 crate tombs. A few other cavities discovered inthe survey do not necessarily belong to any of the categories.The survey led to the discovery of dozens of previously unknown or undocumentedinstallations. The information obtained from the underground cavities adds to ourknowledge about this site and its surroundings during the Early Roman, Byzantine andCrusader periods. This new information is particularly important given the dearth ofinformation known to scholars about this fascinating site.