At the beginning of the discussion of the results of the questionnaire survey, let us note that the content of the basic concepts of our research topic – “cohesion” and “solidarity” – can be discussed endlessly, as well as the meaning of any other “non-tangible” terms (those that cannot be “felt”: love, justice, happiness, etc.). However, on an intuitive level, native speakers certainly have some agreement in their interpretation, allowing them to understand each other and discuss these issues.
Thus, there is a marked commonality of views on the degree of cohesion among repatriates from the former Soviet Union compared to repatriates from other countries and sabras(those born in Israel). The vast majority (70.4%) of respondents claim that repatriates from the former Soviet Union are less cohesive than the other groups mentioned in the study. And only 4.0% have the opposite opinion.

A similar trend is characteristic of assessments of the level of mutual assistance and mutual aid among returnees from the former Soviet Union, which according to the vast majority of them (60%) is lower than among returnees from other countries and sabers.

A direct statistically significant connection between the answers to these two questions (p +0.458**) seems quite predictable: the respondents who answered positively to the question about greater solidarity among the repatriates from the former USSR preferred the answer about a higher degree of mutual assistance among them. The opposite is also true: those who characterize cohesion among the Russian-speaking returnees negatively assess mutual assistance practices among them accordingly.
An absolute majority (57.6%) of those surveyed claimed that in non-Russian-speaking Israeli online self-help groups, negativity and moralizing were less common than in similar Russian-speaking groups. And only 4% of respondents believe that more often, and 14.9% believe that this situation is widespread everywhere.

Comparing repatriates from the former Soviet Union with other groups of Israelis allows us to set a reference point for determining the degree of intragroup cohesion (at least according to the parameter “more-less”) and to define its level as not high. This, at the interpersonal level, is evidenced by the subjective assessments of respondents regarding receiving support from their compatriots. Only 27.2% of respondents claim that they themselves or their acquaintances in a difficult life situation turned to Russian-speaking repatriates for help most often.
As a marker of cohesion in intergroup relations, we took the relations between different generations of Aliyah, where we also find a problematic situation. Every third respondent believes that the “Russian” aliyah of recent years evokes negativity (irritation, aggression, envy) among the repatriates of 1990-2000, and every fifth respondent feels indifferent. Only 14.2% of respondents chose the “empathy” option.
The correlation analysis also shows differences in the assessment of the situation between respondents characterized by different number of years of residence in Israel. For example, in assessing the fairness of Israeli society. The data in the chart below clearly shows that the fewer years respondents have lived in Israel, the higher they rate the degree of social justice implementation here, and vice versa (ρ +317**). While 9.3% of those who have lived here for 5 years or less report that they have not implemented these principles, 28.9% of those who have lived here for more than 15 years do so. In contrast, the highest values of responses about the implementation of these principles are among those who have lived in Israel for 5 years or less (53.5%), and the lowest are among those who have lived here for more than 15 years (21.1%).
In both cases, the difference is more than 3 times. A similar trend is noted for the response option “principles of social justice are rather not implemented“: lower values in the groups living in Israel for up to 10 years, higher values for more than 10 years.

The results of the correlation and contingency analysis reflect significant differences in the assessments of the prospects of Israel in the groups of respondents characterized by different number of years of residence in Israel. The trend lines in the chart below show an increase in the proportion of negative predictions and a decrease in positive predictions about how life in Israel will change in a year, as the number of years lived in Israel increases (ρ +154**).

There is also a correlation between the number of years lived in Israel and assessments of ethno-national tension in the country, as demonstrated by the trend line in the chart below: as the number of years lived in Israel decreases, from 50.3% to 33.3% the proportion of responses about an increase in ethno-national tension decreases (ρ -0.232**)

Thus, we can judge that the repatriates with a shorter “experience” of living in Israel are more positive about the situation and prospects of life in the country.
We have suggested that these differences are in some cases due to material prosperity, and that the number of years lived in Israel hides the degree of “settling down,” including material prosperity.
Indeed, we found a statistically significant relationship between the number of years lived in Israel and subjective assessments of material well-being (ρ -184**). Indicator of the latter in our study was the question: How would you currently assess the financial situation of yours, your family, to which the following answers were offered: good, rather good, average, rather poor, very poor.
As can be seen from the table below, answers about very good, good, and average levels of affluence predominate among respondents who have lived in the country for more than 15 years, and about poor and poor levels of affluence predominate among those who have lived here for 10 years or less.
How many years have you lived in Israel? / Please assess your / your family’s financial situation.
How many years have you lived in Israel? | Mat. position | Very good | Rather good | Average | Rather bad. | Very bad | |
Quantity | 2 | 17 | 52 | 26 | 2 | ||
Up to 5 years | 12,5% | 23,9% | 28,9% | 39,4% | 22,2% | ||
Quantity | 3 | 9 | 33 | 15 | 4 | ||
6-10 years old | 18,8% | 12,7% | 18,3% | 22,7% | 44,4% | ||
∑ 1,2 | 31,3% | 36,6% | 47,2% | 62,1% | 66,6% | ||
Quantity | 1 | 8 | 20 | 6 | 1 | ||
11-15 years old | 6,3% | 11,3% | 11,1% | 9,1% | 11,1% | ||
Quantity | 10 | 37 | 75 | 19 | 2 | ||
4.16 and larger | 62,5% | 52,1% | 41,7% | 28,8% | 22,2% | ||
б | ∑ 3,4 | 68,8% | 63,4% | 52,8% | 37,9% | 33,3% | |
Index | -37,5 | -26,8 | -5,6 | 24,2 | 33,3 |
The dynamics of changes in self-assessments of material well-being depending on the number of years lived in Israel are more noticeable, if we sum up the values of the answers in the groups of respondents living in the country for up to 10 years (up to 5 and 6-10), and separately after 10 years. (The former are ∑1,2 in the table, the latter ∑ 3,4.) Then, by calculating the difference between the first and the second sum (∑1.2 -∑3.4), we obtained the values of the index of material well-being in the groups characterized by the different number of years of residence in the country.
The resulting values are presented in the table above and plotted in the following two diagrams.

Based on the values of the aforementioned wealth index depending on the number of years of residence in Israel, we can see that among the most and the least wealthy Israelis the difference in responses between the first and the second groups, distinguished by the length of residence, is relatively comparable (by about 10 p.p.). But in the first two groups, characterizing good material well-being to varying degrees, negative index values prevail (-37.5 and -26.8), in the last two – positive (24.2 and 33.3). In the middle-income group, the difference index between those who have lived in Israel for less than and more than ten years is close to zero, with some prevalence of negative values (-5.6).
The negative indices show that the groups singled out by material wealth are mostly composed of the population who have lived in Israel for more than 11 years (these are the groups with good, rather good, and average levels of wealth). Accordingly, the positive values of the index, which predominantly characterize groups with rather poor and very poor income, show the prevalence in these groups of representatives of Russian Aliyah living in Israel for less than 10 years.
Thus, the chart below shows that the highest negative values of the index are characterized by the group with the best material well-being, which means the highest representation of those who have lived in Israel for more than 11 years. Negative values of the index decrease to the “rather well” affluent group. Then there is a significant gap with the group of those who have average income. And although those who have lived in the country for more than 11 years prevail there as well, the proportion of those who have lived in the country for less than 10 years is almost equal. The last two columns indicate a significant preponderance of poor and very poor returnees who have lived in the country for less than 10 years, and the proportion of such returnees increases as their wealth worsens.

From this data we can assume, either that it takes Russian-speaking repatriates an average of 10 years to fully adapt socially and economically, or the fundamental changes in the socio-economic conditions of repatriates that occurred about 10 years ago. The study shows a strong statistical correlation between the values of the material well-being of respondents and their assessments of the degree of discrimination against Russian-speaking repatriates in Israel (ρ -216**). The table shows that among respondents with very good financial standing, the most common position is that discrimination against returnees from the former Soviet Union is “rather absent” in Israel (37.5% responded that way).
of its representatives, while the other options were chosen by 18-25% of their number).
As material prosperity worsens, the proportion of such responses decreases and the proportion that such discrimination is present increases. Thus, in the group with a “rather good” material situation there are two competing positions: that discrimination is rather nonexistent, and that discrimination rather exists (this is the answer of 36-37% of respondents; 3% and 24.3% chose the other options). In the group with medium income the position “discrimination is more likely to exist” is unambiguously leading (41% of respondents answered in this way against 10-28.6% who chose the other option). In the groups with “rather poor” and “very poor” income the leading answers were about the unambiguous presence of discrimination (53.2% and 44.4% of their number answered this way, respectively).
If we calculate the difference between the amounts of differently positive and negative responses to discrimination in the groups with different material well-being, the values of the resulting index show that only in the group with very good material well-being the answers about the absence of discrimination prevail, as evidenced by its negative values (-12.5). In all other groups, positive responses prevail to varying degrees.
In your opinion, does Israel discriminate against repatriates from the former Soviet Union? /Please assess your /your family’s financial situation.
Evaluation of discrimination | Mat. position | Very good | Rather good | Average | Rather bad. | Very bad |
Quantity | 3 | 17 | 50 | 33 | 4 | |
1 Yes | 18,8% | 24,3% | 28,6% | 53,2% | 44,4% | |
Quantity | 4 | 25 | 72 | 19 | 2 | |
2 More likely yes | 25,0% | 35,7% | 41,1% | 30,6% | 22,2% | |
∑ 1,2 | 43,8 | 60,0 | 69,7 | 83,8 | 66,6 | |
Quantity | 6 | 26 | 35 | 7 | 3 | |
3 More likely not | 37,5% | 37,1% | 20,0% | 11,3% | 33,3% | |
Quantity | 3 | 2 | 18 | 3 | 0 | |
4 No | 18,8% | 2,9% | 10,3% | 4,8% | 0,0% | |
∑ 3,4 | 56,3 | 40,0 | 30,3 | 16,1 | 3,3 | |
Index | -12,5 | 20,0 | 39,4 | 67,7 | 33,6 |
A similar trend can be seen in the answers to the question about the effectiveness of using the intellectual and professional potential of repatriates from CIS countries in Israel (ρ +247**).
In your opinion, how effectively is the state of Israel using the professional and intellectual potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union? / Please assess your / your family’s financial situation.
Efficiency of use of professional potential | Mat. wealth | Very good | Rather good | Average | Rather bad. | Very bad |
Quantity | 3 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 1 | |
1.Effectively | 21,4% | 4,8% | 4,8% | 3,3% | 12,5% | |
Quantity | 4 | 22 | 48 | 4 | 0 | |
2. Rather effectively | 28,6% | 34,9% | 28,7% | 6,6% | 0,0% | |
∑ 1,2 | 50 | 39,7 | 33,5 | 9,9 | 12,5 | |
Quantity | 3 | 25 | 70 | 25 | 3 | |
3. Rather inefficiently | 21,4% | 39,7% | 41,9% | 41,0% | 37,5% | |
Quantity | 4 | 13 | 41 | 30 | 4 | |
4. Ineffective | 28,6% | 20,6% | 24,6% | 49,2% | 50,0% | |
∑ 3,4 | 50 | 60,3 | 66,5 | 90,2 | 87,5 |
If we summarize the negative and positive assessments of effectiveness for the groups that characterize material well-being separately, then the observed trend of decreasing assessments of the effectiveness of using the potential of Russian-speaking repatriates as their material well-being deteriorates, and the opposite – increasing assessments as their material well-being improves, is more clearly visible, as reflected in the diagram below.

And the last parameter, which can be highlighted as characterizing the differences in assessments between the more and less affluent part of the Russian-speaking population of Israel, is the assessment of the implementation of the principles of social justice in the country (ρ +136*). On this question, there is an average level of statistical relationship between the data, so the dependence is not so clear.
In your opinion, to what extent are the principles of social justice realized in Israeli society? / Please assess your / your family’s financial situation.
To what extent are the principles of social justice implemented | Very good | More like good | Average | Rather bad. | Very bad | |
Quantity | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
Definitely being implemented | 13,3% | 1,5% | 3,9% | 0,0% | 0,0% | |
Quantity | 5 | 28 | 57 | 14 | 2 | |
Rather, they are realized. | 33,3% | 41,2% | 37,0% | 24,6% | 25,0% | |
∑ yes, rather yes | 46,6% | 42,7% | 40,9% | 24,6% | 25,0% | |
Quantity | 6 | 25 | 59 | 28 | 2 | |
Rather, they are not realized. | 40,0% | 36,8% | 38,3% | 49,1% | 25,0% | |
Quantity | 2 | 14 | 32 | 15 | 4 | |
Definitely not implemented | 13,3% | 20,6% | 20,8% | 26,3% | 50,0% | |
∑ No, rather no | 53,3% | 57,4% | 59,1% | 75,4% | 75,0% |
The trend is more noticeable if we make a diagram on the basis of summing up separately in varying degrees of positive and in varying degrees of negative assessments of the implementation of the principles of justice. There is a clear increase in the share of negative assessments as material prosperity decreases, and positive assessments as material prosperity increases.

Among the reasons that hinder solidarity and mutual assistance among repatriates from the former Soviet Union, according to the respondents, the leading one is “negativity caused by one’s own difficulties in adapting to life in Israel (It was difficult for me, why should it be easy for anyone else? I had no help, why should I? Everything is easier for them than for me)”, which was cited by 51.5%. Next in prevalence is the next group of causes:
– lack of a sense of unity and mutual responsibility among repatriates from the former Soviet Union – 36.7%;
– The attitude “my house is on the edge, it’s none of my business” – 30.3%;
– lack of energy and time for others – everything goes to making money and solving everyday problems – 28.5%;
– low level of material well-being – 24.1%.

In this question, along with the proposed answers, of which you could choose no more than three, it was also offered to add your own options. Their generalization allowed us to identify two groups of opinions regarding the reasons for low cohesion:
a) significant differences between the peoples of the former USSR (“… just because they all know Russian does not make a Muscovite and an Uzbek any closer…”, “a doctor from Baku and a mechanic from Zhitomir belong to the same social group?”);
b) envy, spite, and other variations of these qualities.
Regarding the first reason – it is difficult not to agree with the statement about the ethno- and socio-cultural diversity of the peoples that made up the USSR. Nevertheless, the Russian-speaking Aliyah has something in common, even without going into the discussion of the common Soviet culture, which in one way or another is imbued with all representatives of the Soviet and post-Soviet space.
Let’s turn to the social facts from the survey. Judging from his results, okay. 70% of Russian-speaking Israelis agree to some extent that Israeli society discriminates against returnees from the former Soviet Union (30.9% agree with this statement unequivocally, and 36.1% – rather agree with it). This is also evidenced by a 2009 survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute, which asked the returnees about the main problems of the community that have not yet been solved by the government. As the report points out, despite the fact that 20 years had passed since the beginning of the “Great Aliyah” at the time, 36% of respondents still considered the problem of employment and work to be the most painful. The percentage of “Russian” repatriates working outside their profession at the time of the survey was 54%. At the same time, only 24 percent of native Israelis responded that their education allowed them to do skilled work. As noted in the report, even in the relatively young group of returnees (31-40) who came to Israel at a young age, the percentage who accepted a job that was “far below the level of education” reaches 50%, among the elderly – 70%.
Is discrimination against returnees from the former Soviet Union recognized by most Russian-speaking olims a common problem?

More than 60% of respondents, with varying degrees of categoricality, claim that the state of Israel does not make effective use of the intellectual and professional potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union. Moreover, this situation has a protracted nature.

The most common complaint about the inefficient use by the state of Israel of the potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union is made by the poorest segments of the population (ρ +247**).
In addition, there is a strong correlation between the responses about the inefficient use of the potential of Russian-speaking Israelis and the responses about the presence of discrimination of the Russian-speaking part of the population (ρ -425**) and the lack of social justice (ρ +420**).
Thus, the table below shows the prevalence of unequivocal answers about discrimination in the group of respondents who believe that Israel unambiguously uses the potential of Russian-speaking repatriates ineffectively (60.7%; other answers were chosen by 3% to 27% of this group). And in the group convinced of the effective use of the potential of Russian-speaking Aliyah, the most common answer was that there is rather no discrimination, along with the option that there is rather discrimination. These options were each chosen by 29.0% of the representatives of these groups. In the two groups located between the extremes of effectiveness evaluations (those who responded, “rather effective” and “rather ineffective”), responses about rather discriminating prevail (48.0% and 39.0%, respectively).
Thus, the answers about the presence of discrimination are coupled with a perception of low efficiency in using the professional and intellectual potential of the Russian-speaking Aliya.
In your opinion, does Israel discriminate against repatriates from the former Soviet Union? In your opinion, how effectively is the state of Israel using the intellectual and professional potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union?
Is there discrimination in Israel…? | How effective…? | Definitely effective | Rather effectively | Rather inefficiently | Definitely ineffective |
Quantity | 4 | 6 | 34 | 54 | |
Yes | 23,5% | 7,8% | 27,6% | 60,7% | |
Quantity | 5 | 30 | 59 | 21 | |
More likely yes than no. | 29,4% | 39,0% | 48,0% | 23,6% | |
Quantity | 5 | 25 | 27 | 11 | |
More likely no than yes. | 29,4% | 32,5% | 22,0% | 12,4% | |
Quantity | 3 | 16 | 3 | 3 | |
no | 17,6% | 20,8% | 2,4% | 3,4% |
The statistical correlation between assessments of discrimination and the effectiveness of using the potential of Russian-speaking Aliyah in Israel can be traced for all the groups identified on the basis of assessments of the effectiveness of using the potential of Russian-speaking Israelis (except for the first group, most likely due to its low representation in the study). But it is most visible in the group of respondents giving sharply negative assessments of both. (See: chart and table below).

The data presented in the table below show a downward trend in the proportion of responses about the implementation of principles of justice in Israel as assessments of the effectiveness of using the potential of Russian-speaking repatriates decrease. Thus, the most frequently mentioned unrealized principles of social justice are in the group of those who are unambiguously convinced of the ineffective use of the potential of repatriates from the CIS (46.0%). And in this group that is the most common opinion. Other views in this group are held by 3-33% of respondents.
Respondents who claim that the potential of repatriates from CIS countries in Israel is rather ineffective are more often convinced that the principles of justice in Israel are rather unrealized (this is the opinion of 56.3% against 0.9-25.9% who chose other options). In contrast, among those who believe that using the potential of repatriates from CIS countries is more effective, the response prevails regarding the implementation of principles of justice in Israel (53.4% of this group compared to 4.2-26.8% of those who responded differently).
In your opinion, to what extent are the principles of social justice implemented in Israeli society? /In your opinion, how effectively is the state of Israel using the intellectual and professional potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union?
To what extent … are the principles of social justice realized? | How effective…? | Definitely effective | Rather effectively | Rather inefficiently | Definitely ineffective |
Quantity | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | |
Definitely being implemented | 8,3% | 5,6% | 0,9% | 3,4% | |
Quantity | 4 | 45 | 29 | 15 | |
Rather, they are realized. | 33,3% | 63,4% | 25,9% | 17,2% | |
Quantity | 6 | 19 | 63 | 29 | |
Rather, they are not realized. | 50,0% | 26,8% | 56,3% | 33,3% | |
Quantity | 1 | 3 | 19 | 40 | |
Definitely not implemented | 8,3% | 4,2% | 17,0% | 46,0% |
It is noteworthy that rather low estimates of the effectiveness of the use of the potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union, the conviction of most of them that there is discrimination against Russian-speaking repatriates, and a number of other problems identified, all this is not a reason to form a vision of the general problem field specific to the group under study. This is evidenced by both the absence of significant correlations between the answers to these questions, and the fact that 76.5% of respondents are convinced that solidarity, unity of interests and goals are rather lacking among the natives of the former Soviet Union.

In this connection it is more correct to speak not about the lack of commonality among the Russian-speaking Aliyah, but about the lack of perception of the problems, interests, and goals that exist among them as common. Of course, this is not the only thing that unites this group. But for some reason the emphasis is placed on the differences.
In general, despite the rather gloomy perception by Russian-speaking Israelis of the characteristics of cohesion and mutual assistance among repatriates from the former Soviet Union, the figures show that not a few, A total of 75% of their number have, with varying regularity over the past year, provided pro bono assistance (things, food, money, things to do, help with employment) to strangers. Of these: 49.8% had help 1-2 times, 24.5% had help on a regular basis (one-fourth had no help). More than one-third of those surveyed reported that they had participated in some kind of volunteer activity in the past 12 months (one in ten regularly and one in four several times). In total, about 70% of respondents say that among their acquaintances there are people who do volunteer work (of these, 12.1% say there are many and 56% say there are a few).