Holocaust Tweets as an Act of Resistance

in Israel Studies Review

Abstract

More than other collective memories, the Holocaust is the most vivid memory in today’s Israeli existence. As a result of comprehensive official and unofficial memory work that utilizes the Holocaust as a political and educational tool, on the one hand, and due to the advent of the new media, on the other, its grip on everyday Israeli reality is only growing stronger. As part of a broader research project focusing on resistive cultural activity on Israeli Twitter, this article makes visible the striking omnipresence of the Holocaust on this social network, while maintaining that many of the ‘Holocaust tweets’ constitute an act of resistance. That is, users are engaged in oppositional decoding in a battle against the hegemonic Holocaust discourse.

A few years ago, my husband and I went on a ski vacation in the Austrian Alps with our three young boys. We stayed in a homey hotel in one of the stunning, pastoral villages overlooking the snowy mountains. One evening we were enjoying our five-course gourmet meal at the hotel’s dining room; the place was packed with guests, a fire crackled in the fireplace, the atmosphere was cozy, and a smiling accordionist roamed between the tables, playing cheerful, local folk tunes. When the accordionist stopped at our table, I took a short video of him playing for our amused kids and immediately, of course, shared it with our family via instant messaging. The reply from my mother-in-law was prompt: “You are in Naziland.”

While this sort of reaction by an 80-year-old woman may be deemed predictable or even reasonable, it is far more perplexing when, for example, a young Israeli wakes up in a hotel in Austria and tweets: “You wake up in an authentic local Austrian hotel and not by the sound of stomping boots in the stairwell? Everything else is a bonus” (@guy_mpo).1 Or when a different Israeli spots a mouse between the dryer and the washing machine in his home in Israel and immediately thinks: “I now know how the generals who caught Anna Frank must have felt” (@danfin).

These examples should not come as a real surprise. Many scholars have directed attention to the various formal and informal ways in which Israeli culture imprints the Holocaust on Israeli sensibilities to the point where the vast majority of Israelis,2 as young as 18, occasionally ponder what they would have done had they been in the Holocaust (Rinkevich-Pave 2008). However natural this may now seem to Israelis, it was not always this way. In fact, the Holocaust has come a long way from when it was first perceived as something that had happened to the passive, cowardly Jews, who were led to their death like ‘sheep to the slaughter’ (Almog 2000; Friedländer 1990), to current days, in which it dominates most areas of Israeli social and cultural life (Klar et al. 2013). Israeli society maintains a powerful and living collective memory of the Holocaust (Yair 2014), expanding its meanings and applications, and utilizing all national and institutional mechanisms to preserve and transmit the trauma to future generations (Bar-Tal 2007; Steir-Livny 2014; Vinitzky-Seroussi 2010). As a result, the Holocaust, once an antonym for Israeliness, has become its synonym. It has been gradually transformed from ‘what Israeliness is not’ into a core component of Israeli culture, society, and identity (Klar et al. 2013).

Intensive institutionalized memory work is a chief element in the Israeli educational system (Vinitzky-Seroussi 2010), which aims to guarantee state control over the process and content transmission (Bar-Tal 2007). However, since the 1980s, in response to such official efforts, a new unofficial path of memory began taking shape in Israeli popular culture (Ofer 2009). On this track, Holocaust memory became more privatized (Shapira 1998), while new critical voices began to enter the discourse (Zandberg 2015). According to Liat Steir-Livny (2014, 2016, 2017), Holocaust-related texts in popular culture, as well as in online platforms, are being produced as part of the battle against the canonic memory agents. These texts aim to offer an alternative and subversive path that also seeks to remember, albeit differently. Yet at the same time, these new Holocaust texts that engulf contemporary Israeli reality with additional layers of images, representations, and meanings of the Holocaust both deepen and broaden its grip on Israeli awareness. Put differently, such cultural texts constitute non-commemorative acts of collective memory in the sense that they are not intentional commemorative activities, but unintentional, individual daily acts (Yadlin-Segal 2017). Nonetheless, as Michael Schudson (1997) points out, they too contribute in their own right to the construction and reconstruction of the collective memory.

As a result, although clearly unequal in authority and weight, the two parallel memory routes—commemorative/official and non-commemorative/unofficial—serve to anchor the Holocaust in Israeli experience in an unprecedented manner, in terms of frequency, scope, and context. This article maintains that the omnipresence of the Holocaust in nearly every aspect of Israeli life today has driven Israeli society to a new phase, which I refer to as ‘Holocaust overdose’. In other words, images and representations of the Holocaust and references and comparisons to it are flowing freely through Israelis’ lives from the right and the left, from above and below, from the mainstream and the margins of society. The ‘Web 2.0 environment’, which is characterized by user-generated content (UGC), both facilitates the production of additional layers of discourse and plays a vital role in shaping this emerging phase. While in previous eras memory construction was primarily in the hands of state agents, and later in the hands of popular culture creators as well, in the Web 2.0 era, anyone with an Internet connection can disseminate his/her own perspective widely and instantly, thus adding one’s own pieces of meaning to the collective puzzle. Saturated with ‘Holocaust tweets’, Israeli Twitter echoes this state of affairs. According to one figure, 1 in 500 Israeli texts produced today on Twitter mentions the Holocaust directly,3 and every seven minutes an Israeli user makes a direct referral to the Holocaust. Over the course of a year, the name ‘Rabin’ appeared 26,000 times on Twitter, while ‘Holocaust’ appeared 37,000 times.4

Against the backdrop of an Israeli reality drenched in Holocaust, the main argument in this article is that many of the Holocaust references that are currently being produced on Twitter amount to an act of resistance by Israeli users who oppose the ‘Holocaustization’ (Zandberg 2006) of Israeli life by the state and its agents. First, users reject the hegemonic narratives and rhetoric that frame the Holocaust in particularistic terms and instill perceptions of eternal victimhood and constant fear of annihilation. Additionally, users object to force-feeding Israeli reality with the trauma and to the frequent (ab)use of Jewish tragedy by the state, its agents, and leadership. The article also speculates that these acts of resistance aim to stop the current trajectory toward increased ‘Holocaustization’, derail the hegemonic Holocaust discourse, and set a new route toward a different and healthier Holocaust remembrance and commemoration.

Holocaust Meets web 2.0 Resistance

Israeli research on Holocaust remembrance is abundant. However, to date, the majority of the research focuses on offline and institutionalized acts of remembering. Studies in the online environments are scarce, while studies that investigate UGC in that context are extremely rare (Yadlin-Segal 2017). A few scholars who have investigated the changes in Israeli Holocaust commemoration focus on humorous texts as a significant indicator of that change in discourse (Steir-Livny 2014, 2016; Zandberg 2006, 2015). Through the lens of cultural trauma theories, these scholars interpret Holocaust satire on Israeli television as a defense mechanism and a resistive activity against official memory agents. Flooding popular culture with humorous texts is an attempt to defuse the chronic anxiety of annihilation created by the hegemonic Holocaust awareness, as well a tool to criticize Israeli society and hegemonic memory.

A small number of scholars have followed the discourse as it advances online. Aya Yadlin-Segal (2017) analyzed the use of the Holocaust as an interpretive framework by Israeli users who posted comments on news stories that covered an Academy Award to an Iranian film. She found that with regard to the Holocaust, the online comments echoed the official and dominant voice, ‘never again’—a meta-narrative in which the past, present, and future intertwine into a single narrative of Jewish persecution, fear of annihilation, and victimization. The researcher therefore questions the view of online outlets as a true alternative platform for critical public opinion.

In another study, Steir-Livny (2017) analyzes the notable success of the Hitler Rants parodies in Hebrew on YouTube,5 albeit arriving at the opposite conclusion. According to her, social media platforms enable younger generations not only to nod in agreement while watching Holocaust parodies on television, but also to take an active part in a bottom-up revolution against the hegemonic narratives. Steir-Livny concludes that the “social media platforms free Hitler Rants from the consideration of any aspect of hegemony powers and it turns them into a significant and central tool in the struggle against the ‘repetition compulsion’ of the trauma” (ibid.: 117). As indicated by Yadlin-Segal, Steir-Livny’s conclusions more closely cohere with the body of scholarship on Internet activism in general (Earl et al. 2010) and Twitter in particular (Gerbaudo 2012; Weller et al. 2014). According to this thinking, Web 2.0 is a contested terrain, used by the left, right, and center of both dominant cultures and subcultures in order to promote their own agendas and views. As Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner (2004: 94) put it: “Online activist subcultures have materialized as a vital new space of politics and culture in which a wide diversity of individuals and groups have used emergent technologies in order to help to produce new social relations and forms of political possibility.”

The bustling online territory also attracts scholars studying web-based commemoration practices who are looking at the ways individuals negotiate, reconstruct, and share their versions of collective memory in a given context (Yadlin-Segal 2017). These scholars often make use of the term ‘vernacular memory’ versus ‘official memory’. The former was first conceptualized by John Bodnar to imply memory that is anti-hegemonic, even subversive, in nature. However, in online memory studies—perhaps since they tend to focus on users’ activity on formal commemoration sites—the vernacular discourse has lost its subversive edge (ibid.: 31). This article follows the path of ‘Internet activism’ as it seeks to shift the focus back to the counter-hegemonic nature of the online vernacular discourse. In keeping with cultural studies tradition, the article scrutinizes some of the texts found on Israeli Twitter through theories that focus on the tension between dominant ideology and hegemonic culture, on the one hand, and criticism, opposition, and counter-hegemonic activities, on the other.

In their attempts to identify sites and practices used by groups and individuals in challenging the dominant ideologies, scholars operate within a few theoretical frameworks. This article, which is a part of a broader research project focusing on resistive forms and cultural activity on Twitter, employs Stuart Hall’s (1993) ‘encoding/decoding’ model. Initially, this model referred to television, but it has since been applied to culture and media culture broadly (Woodstock 2016). According to Hall, audience members decode media content in multiple ways; some are in line with the dominant cultural ideology, while others negotiate and reject hegemonic meanings and values.

The revolutionary transition from traditional mass media to the mind-boggling Web 2.0 era has managed to rock the decoding/encoding boat (Hermes 2009; Lüders 2008). However, in recent years cultural and media scholars are once again rediscovering Hall’s model as a useful tool for audience research (Shaw 2015). According to Mike Proulx and Stacey Shepatin (2012), the rise of social media has created a powerful backchannel of realtime expressions, which in turn creates more engaged audiences through the compelling force of connecting within a community through shared real-time experiences. The social media backchannel contrasts strongly with the classic ‘sender-message-receiver’ model of media communications.

Thus, while the classic model provides media consumers with a message to respond to—or following Hall, to decode—there was no real-time response mechanism whereby cultural consumers could share their opinions about how they received the message. In other words, pre-Twitter, such negotiations were left for water-cooler discussions or in-depth interviews, usually well after the occurrence. Today, however, decoders are merely 280 characters away from broadcasting to the world exactly what they think at the moment of decoding.

Why Twitter?

Data harvested from social media sites have become a vital part of the new sociologist’s diet. Twitter is by far the most studied network as it differs from other networks, such as Facebook, in that the data are more accessible to researchers (M. Williams et al. 2017). Since its launch in 2007, Twitter has become the primary space for online citizens of the world to publicly express their reactions to events, and hence a useful source of data for social science research into digital publics (ibid.).

While the micro-blogging platform is being extensively researched globally (S. Williams et al. 2013), Israeli Twitter has been largely ignored by local scholarship. According to the meager data available, the popularity of Twitter in Israel is substantially lower compared to global activity, as well as to Israeli Facebook, with one estimate of about 20,000 active users (Morr 2016). And while on Israeli Facebook there seem to be more ‘righties’ than ‘lefties’ (Berger 2017), Twitter appears to present a mirror image, harboring more users affiliated with the left-wing agenda.6 Political affiliation is important to keep in mind, since much of the Israeli mainstream establishment’s institutionalized Holocaust discourse is more strongly associated with the right-wing political agenda, whereas the left-wing camp seeks to challenge it (Benski and Katz 2016).

Israelis on Twitter should be understood as an ‘interpretive community’ whose members share interpretive strategies for ‘reading’ and extracting meaning from the texts (Radway 1984), and “for writing texts, for constituting their properties and assigning their intentions” (Fish 1980: 171). One example is the ‘Twitter rule’, according to which ‘slaughtering sacred cows’ is not only permitted but welcomed, which is distinctive from Facebook culture. This understanding is widely expressed in tweets such as “Us? Sacred cows? Have you had a stroke and forgotten that we’re on Twitter and not on Face[book]?” (@odedron). That is to say, tweets, as a form of online vernacular texts, are hardly regulated formally by Twitter or informally by the user community (Muzaini and Yeoh 2015). In this context, the Israeli network corresponds with parts of the global network, which hosts alternative thinking and activity (Moody-Ramirez et al. 2016; Poell and Borra 2012). Another distinctive aspect of the Israeli activity relates to data previously mentioned that attest to the prominence of the Holocaust on Twitter, a feeling that is shared by many users as in the following tweet: “The radio announcer has just reported a quarter of a Shoah7 traffic jam. She must be a Twitter user” (@eldad_).

This article is a first attempt to consider some aspects of the flourishing counter-hegemonic Holocaust discourse on Twitter. Tweets for the study were collected by manually inserting Holocaust-related keywords into Twitter’s search engine. In accordance with the theoretical framework presented above, all tweets harvested for this study are from a particular set that reflects possible counter-hegemonic voices in Israeli society, that is, “negotiated code” and “oppositional code” (Hall 1993: 102–103).

After conducting a basic mapping of the texts, the analysis was based on a sample of over 500 counter-hegemonic tweets that had been tweeted from unrestricted, open accounts between 2012 and 2018. All were written in Hebrew and have been translated into English for the purpose of this study. The tweets in the sample were subjected to a close textual analysis. In what follows I discuss two of the resistive practices8 that emerged in the qualitative thematic analysis: (1) utilization of the Holocaust-related phrase ‘must not compare’, and (2) pushback reactions by Israeli users to constant attempts by right-wing political leaders to narrowly construct the ‘trauma drama’ of the Holocaust (Alexander and Dromi 2011).

#MustNotcompare

Hashtag is a sequence of non-whitespace characters preceded by the hash character (#). According to Yarimar Bonilla and Jonathan Rosa (2015), the hashtag is often used on Twitter as a way of marking a conversation within this platform. It “serves as an indexing system in both the clerical sense and the semiotic sense” (ibid.: 5). In the clerical sense, it creates a ‘filing system’, which allows users to quickly retrieve information on a specific topic. In the semiotic sense, hashtags mark the intended significance of an utterance by adding layers of meaning to the text (Hemphill 2015), from a subtext to full-blown ‘hashtag activism’ (Stache 2015; Williams 2015). In other words, hashtags allow users not just to simply ‘file’ their comments, but also “to performatively frame what these comments are ‘really about,’ thereby enabling users to indicate a meaning that might not be otherwise apparent … as a way of creating a particular interpretive frame” (Bonilla and Rosa 2015: 5).

A popular hashtag on Israeli Twitter is the sequence #MustNotCompare (asur le’hashevot, in Hebrew). This specific sequence—a social fact for anyone who has been raised and educated in Israel—refers to the societal dictum that the Holocaust is a unique event in the history of humanity, against Jews only, and any other genocide and certainly any other dire events, issues, or circumstances must never be compared to it. It is important to emphasize that implicit comparisons, such as the use of the Holocaust by state agents as a reference point for current events, an issue that will be discussed in the next section, usually are not regarded as a violation of that prohibition.

‘Must not compare’ is the embodiment of the official, institutional, hegemonic Holocaust discourse in Israel. The rationale behind it inevitably reduces any reflection and lessons learned from the historical tragedy to the narrowly confined Jewish, particularistic tribal level. In recent decades, however, with the emergence of the ‘new memory’ (Steir-Livny 2014), this societal taboo is rapidly being eroded in the vernacular discourse. Twitter users, like everyone else in Israel, are well aware of the strict ban. Thus, when users compare a series of current occurrences in Israeli society to the Holocaust at large and tag these comparisons with the popular hashtag #MustNotCompare, they thus plug in the subversive subtext:

I wonder if this is how the sane citizens of Germany felt when things started to spiral out of control. #MustNotCompare.

(@spollak)

Asylum seekers tried to hide in the attic #MustNotCompare.

(@hyperbonit)

However, by looking only at tweets marked with #MustNotCompare, one would miss out on a large number of tweets that are in fact comparing, since many users do not use hashtags in their tweets (Deller 2011). In some cases, when a tweet is clearly engaged in comparison but the author did not mark it with the ‘proper’ hashtag, other users may tag it when replying to the original tweet. For example, user @rotemrt pointed out that “the hashtag #MustNotCompare was omitted from your tweet.”

A few spinoffs, although much less popular, include #PermissibleTo-Compare, #ShouldBeCompared, and #MustCompare. Some users integrate those sequences directly in their texts without using the hashtag format. For example:

Also, it is permissible to compare.

We should compare.

We must compare.

(@tsadicki)

Lately, since it’s so forbidden to compare it becomes really easy to compare.

(@shaltitamr)
Occasionally, when tweeting ‘forbidden comparisons’, users will add the hashtag #sorry:

[Rabin] square is being filled up with the last lefties. Like the Umschlagplatz. #Sorry #MustNotCmpare.

(@isparliament)

They really feel guilty, the Germans. I wonder how many points we’ll give Palestine in the 2030 Eurovision. #MustNotCompare #sorry.

(@tomromem)

Such tweets can be understood as an action within Hall’s second decoding position, the ‘negotiated mode’. Decoding with the negotiated version acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations, while at a more restricted, situational level, it makes its own ground rules—it operates with the exceptions to the rule. Thus, this mode accords the privileged position to the dominant definition of events, while reserving the right to make a more negotiated application to “local conditions” (Hall 1993: 102). The negotiated version is thus shot through with contradictions.

According to these principles, such tweets can be implicitly read as follows: “We acknowledge that there is no real comparison to the magnitude of the Holocaust atrocities. However, we compare X to the Holocaust because we protest against the cynical exploitation of the tragedy and the rhetoric that falsifies it. At the same time, we apologize for that comparison.” Such an analysis echoes previous claims according to which the ‘new memory’ does not ridicule or condemn the Holocaust but rather seeks to remember it differently (Steir-Livny 2016, 2017).

Lastly, under the #MustNotCompare variations, Israeli users compare diverse topics unrelated to the Holocaust. This practice can be understood as another form of opposition to the intensive infusion of the Holocaust into everyday lives. The following tweet, for example, seems to have nothing to do with the Holocaust, and yet it rumbles: “And then I discovered a bottle of beer that was trying to hide, lying on the bottom shelf, pressed against the back of the refrigerator. #MustNotCompare” (@Orofer).

In 2016, a new set of hashtags on the Israeli platform was born. Following the speech of the Israel Defense Forces’ deputy chief of staff, Major General Yair Golan, which linked recent developments in Israeli society to processes that unfolded in Europe before the Holocaust, users began to tag tweets with #processes or #TheProcesses (with and without the #). In addition to adding layers of subtext that might not be otherwise apparent, hashtags also have an intertextual potential to link a broad range of tweets on a specific topic as part of an intertextual chain, regardless of whether these tweets have anything to do with one another. Thus, in some cases, reading through hashtag chains can provide the reader with a sense of the bigger picture (Bonilla and Rosa 2015: 5). As user @DorrSomeoneEl explains: “A personal recommendation—go through the hashtag #processes. When everything is concentrated in one place, it’s hard to ignore the problem.”

This aspect is important. In 1988, Linda Steiner looked at the “No Comment” section in the American feminist magazine Ms., which reprinted items about women that readers submitted from ‘outside’ media. According to Steiner (1988), the reprinting of such insulting clippings allowed women as a group to publicly reject the dominant patriarchal culture.

Steiner concludes that symbolic resistance was important to the Ms. readership, in part because sharing offensive texts with a sympathetic audience may serve as a minor catharsis. However, more importantly, it was an act of resistance against the hegemonic discourse (ibid.).

By modifying Steiner’s (1988) conclusions in relation to the Web 2.0 case, it can be argued that many of these Holocaust tweets give shape and meaning to group experiences, symbolically marking the group’s normative boundaries, reconfirming its convictions, and allowing the group to demarcate its worldview from that of the dominant culture. Such activity on Twitter both violates the dominant code and, by extension, the value system it sustains, as well as producing and nourishing alternative codes and values. It may even remind users that at some point they might have identified with ‘them’ and decoded according to ‘their’ rules. Twitter may also serve its community by encouraging recent ‘converts’ to continue to believe in and work actively to support their oppositional vision of the Holocaust memory (ibid.: 11).

Steiner (1988: 12) also underscores the visual effect of seeing these items on the magazine pages, as they “provide visible evidence for the readers’ sense of continuing operation. As visible data, they provide a focus of resistance.” Like the clippings for the Ms. readership, these public Holocaust tweets are accessible to anyone within the Twitter interpretive community, thus providing a visual anchor of resistance for those who wish to escape the destructive cycle and to rethink the Holocaust’s role in present-day Israeli consciousness. An indication of how crucial this aspect may be is evident in the following thread. User @rotemrt asked his followers: “What event, book, or work has triggered the radicalization process in you?” In response, users pointed to Twitter as the framework that inspired their resistance activity: @hanantm replied: “My connection to people on Twitter,” and @smalldeed answered: “Twitter without a doubt.”

The Use of the Holocaust by state Agents

“Place Your Bets: Will Bibi say Holocaust and Iran in the Eulogy, or Not?”
Another prominent group of Holocaust tweets includes texts that directly criticize the exploitation of the Holocaust memory by Israeli leaders as a tool to leverage political achievements. Usually these tweets are not tagged, but the critique is unmistakable. The politicization of the Holocaust is being instilled in the Israeli reality by both sides of the political spectrum (Steir-Livny 2014). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly not the first, or only, Israeli statesman who is repeatedly soldering the Israeli existential predicament to the lessons learned from the Holocaust (Yair 2014). However, in the eyes of many, Netanyahu seems to be taking the practice to a whole new level (Hasson 2015). The absurdity of Netanyahu’s frequent declarations (Steir-Livny 2017) does not go unnoticed by Twitter users, who often criticize and ridicule their PM’s attempts to capitalize on the memory of the Holocaust:

Only two minutes into PM Netanyahu’s speech at the Jerusalem Day ceremony, and the magic words have appeared—Auschwitz and Masada.

(@BarakRavid)

Why don’t we merge Holocaust Memorial Day with Independence Day and mark it on the date in which Auschwitz was liberated by the late Yoni Netanyahu???

(@roeeboim)
A harsh criticism is also evident in the following exchange:

Bibi has raped and murdered the word peace.

(@amirbinder)

Let’s not talk about what he has done to the word Holocaust #sorry.

(@KarenHaber)

Utilizing the Holocaust memory for political ends is far from new (Yair 2014). This trend, which began with David Ben-Gurion and was accelerated by Menachem Begin in the 1980s (Segev 1993; Zimmerman 2002), has since blown up beyond measure. Twitter users are deeply rooted in the Israeli reality that has been led by Netanyahu for the past decade. On the one hand, they live in a reality in which their PM is hammering away at the Holocaust memory from every podium in sight. On the other hand, they also live in an era in which the universal lessons of the Holocaust, such as the vital importance of human rights and core democratic values, are being undermined (Ibn Bari et al. 2017). It is also an ironic commentary and generally known fact that many Holocaust survivors are living in poverty and declining conditions in Israel (Ynet 2015).

These two layers of reality are on a daily collision course, creating cognitive dissonance and fertile soil for dissent. Twitter users decode Netanyahu’s frequent references to the Holocaust as a cynical political trick designed to detract from the real issues and score personal and ideological points, domestically and abroad. Netanyahu’s references to the Holocaust as a “national interest” (Hall 1993: 103) are therefore being rejected by parts of the Israeli public, and their tweets signify that they see through the manipulation. Operating with an oppositional code, these users are joining “the struggle in discourse” (ibid.). In Hebrew, ‘Holocaust survivor’ and ‘Holocaust exploitation’ are pronounced differently but spelled the same. The following tweet summarizes the critique of Netanyahu with a play on words: “The Netanyahu family is the second generation of Holocaust exploiters” (@bewinder).

The Curious Case of Naftali Bennett

In February 2017, Israel’s minister of education, Naftali Bennett, tweeted two photos. In one were Nazi uniforms. In the second was a billboard featuring logos of German companies that aided the Nazis. Above the pictures, Bennett wrote:

This morning I’m touring The Ghetto Fighters’ House Museum in the Galilee.
See the Nazi uniforms? Manufacturer: Hugo Boss.
On the right, other companies that aided the Nazis.
We will never forget.
Bennett’s tweet was ‘favored’ (liked) by 95 users and ‘retweeted’ 15 times. A retweet is a reposting of a tweet (usually authored by another user) on one’s timeline, thus sharing it with all of one’s followers. Retweeting is motivated by numerous reasons, including amplifying the message to new audiences, publicly agreeing with someone, and validating someone else’s thoughts (Boyd et al. 2010). In other words, in Bennett’s case, the ‘favored’ and ‘retweets’ constituted an expression of the “dominant-hegemonic position” (Hall 1993: 101). About a hundred users were operating inside the dominant code of the hegemonic Holocaust discourse, taking the “connoted meaning” from Bennett “full and straight” (ibid.).

However, Bennett’s ‘Holocaust tweet’ landed in Israelis’ laps on a sunny Friday morning, which, for many, marks the beginning of a much-desired relaxed weekend, and it immediately ignited a mini-storm on the platform. Dozens of users were decoding within the negotiated and oppositional versions, challenging the implicit hegemonic message—as well as the constant attempts to ‘Holocaustize’ their day-to-day life—by posting replies under Bennett’s original tweet. The surge of responses resulted in the minister tweeting the following clarification two hours later: “To all the commentators: this isn’t a call for a boycott, but only to acknowledge our past and its memory.”

In 82 direct responses to the original tweet, many Israeli users were quick to perform a reverse reading of Bennett’s text. Some wondered, for example, what exactly it was that the minister was after on a casual Friday morning:

Now that you’ve reminded us: what should we do with this information?

(@hayoetz)

What the hell do you want from us???

(@talmidmafcid)
Others offered a broader discussion of universal lessons learned from the Holocaust:

In another 50 years they will point likewise at Israeli weapons in a museum in southern Sudan.

(@josefyisrael)

The Lehi logo is missing from there.

(@abalehleh)

The Minister of Education, you need more clarity of thought in your texts. What is it that we shouldn’t forget? Ensuring the welfare of minorities in the country? Nationalism is a dangerous thing?

(@Krembo25)

Never forget? Anyone who supports a soldier who kills a helpless wounded man has forgotten what was really worth remembering.

(@yokneamussi)

We will never forget where extreme right and extreme left can lead nations.

(@gadisrael)

Bennett’s tweet provoked a heated discussion on Twitter because it was received by many Israelis on the platform as a manifestation of the most dominant message in Israeli society, that is, “never be a passive victim again” (Klar et al. 2013: 135), which bundles past, present, and future into traumatic narratives. It thus provided a real-time opportunity to join the “politics of signification” (Hall 1993: 103). It served as a ‘political moment’ (ibid.) in which the battle against the rhetoric of the Holocaust memory and the political (ab)use of it in the day-to-day Israeli discourse was joined. It should be noted, as scholars have pointed out, that these practices fuel ethnocentric tribalism (Bar-Tal 2007) as well as aggressiveness and paranoia (Yair 2014), which are part of the hawkish right-wing ideology (Alexander and Dromi 2011), of which Minister Bennett is one of the most prominent representatives.

Interestingly, and contrary to many observers who see Holocaust humor as inappropriate (Blau 2011), these Twitter users consider precisely such attempts made by the state and its agents as actually ‘cheapening’ and ‘degrading’ the memory of the Holocaust (Steir-Livny 2017), as the following commentator indicates: “A fucking Friday demagogue. Holocaust contempt is dripping off you without you even realiz[ing] it” (@naoglinky).

Discussion

As the result of a meticulous, extensive, and comprehensive memory process, the Holocaust has become the most vivid collective memory that exists in Israeli consciousness (Vinitzky-Seroussi 2010). It is a vibrant force in the lives and imaginations of Israelis and a pivotal event that shapes identities (Ofer 2009). The further removed we are from it, the greater its presence seems to be in public discourse (Steir-Livny 2014). The Israeli education system is a significant site in which the hegemonic memory is systematically instilled. Detached from any historical context (Bar-Tal 2007), the memory of the Holocaust is being massively tattooed on children’s souls, starting at a very young age (Steir-Livny 2017).

Simultaneously, in the Israeli political arena, the memory of the Holocaust is being politicized by both the right and the left, to the point where it is immediately associated with any conflict (Steir-Livny 2014) and considered a dominant interpretive framework for current political and cultural issues (Yadlin-Segal 2017). Since the 1980s, alongside the official memory, an alternative, vernacular path of memory has been developing in tandem—one that brings the Holocaust memory from the summit of statehood down to everyday earthly life and popular culture (Steir-Livny 2014). More recently, Web 2.0 has joined in with a heavy foot on the memory pedal. These developments are flooding everyday Israeli life with incessant images, representations, meanings, implications, and references to the Holocaust, driving Israeli reality to a state of ‘Holocaust overdose’. Scholars who analyze the development of the ‘new memory’ in popular culture suggest that it should be understood as a defense mechanism that helps Israelis to cope with and neutralize the constant fear and anxiety imposed by the hegemonic Holocaust awareness: it plays a vital role in recovering from the traumatic collective memory, while also serving as a tool for social criticism (Steir-Livny 2014, 2016; Zandberg 2006, 2015). However, several studies in the online domain have come to the opposite conclusion about whether or not subversive activity is being conducted online against the hegemonic Holocaust discourse (Steir-Livny 2017; Yadlin-Segal 2017).

This analysis is a first attempt to unravel parts of the Holocaust-related cultural activity on Twitter, interpreting it as an act of resistance aimed at changing the discourse (Hall 1993: 103). Although many Israelis, inside and outside Twitter, are operating within the dominant code, this study maintains that a significant portion of the Holocaust-related activity on Twitter is subversive, for it seeks to undermine the hegemonic memory and its implications for Israeli society. As I have demonstrated, Twitter users who operate with the negotiated and oppositional code criticize the stagnation of traditional-nationalist memory (Yair 2011), as well as the frequent utilization of the memory and its political (ab)use (Zandberg 2006) by the state and its agents.

These voices aim to unscrew the traumatic past from the Israeli present and future, a tangle that produces and reproduces a post-traumatic society that lives in a “past continues” time (Zandberg et al. 2012: 76), with persistent and endemic existential fears of Jewish annihilation (Yair 2014). In the cynical tone that characterizes the Israeli Twitter community, user @ehudkramer remarks on the Israeli dystopia, while hinting at the desired reality, free of a ‘trauma drama’: “Good thing that Uri Ariel didn’t take Medvedev to Yad Vashem. What would we’d have done without the Holocaust?”9 Although the political affiliation of users has not been systematically examined, it is reasonable to assume that many of those users are affiliated with the Israeli left—a group that, diminished and impoverished as it currently is, has a clear and present interest in changing the discourse that serves to strengthen the right-wing political agenda (Alexander and Dromi 2011; Benski and Katz 2016).

“If you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.” Therefore, scholars rightly caution against the tendency to romanticize audiences by stressing the degree to which the latter engage in oppositional decoding and reject hegemonic meanings and values (Carragee 1993). Such warnings were in my mind when writing this article. Hence, it is worth emphasizing that, contrary to the discussion thus far, when many Israelis use Holocaust terminology to refer to their daily experiences, they are, in fact, more in line with the official discourse in a ‘Holocaust-overdosed’ society. When, for example, Israeli students describe a difficult exam as a ‘Holocaust’ or a harsh teacher as a ‘Nazi’, I do not believe they are truly engaged in a struggle for meaning to counter dominant views, since many probably still lack a sufficiently deep awareness of the dystopian implications of the hegemonic memory for Israeli society to be able to aspire to a trauma-free reality. In Hall’s (1993: 103) words, these young adults do not detotalize the Holocaust memory “in the preferred code in order to retotalize [it] within some alternative framework of reference.” A more reasonable explanation for using Holocaust terminology in such cases would be that the students have grown up in a ‘Holocaust-obsessed’ Israeli educational system. As user @DrorHoffman explains: “[We compare everything to Nazis] because the Holocaust and the Nazis, that’s all we’ve been taught. We have no other examples in our heads.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Paul Scham for his support, advice, and patience, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

NOTES
1

All translations from Hebrew are mine. Twitter handles of non-public figures have been changed to protect privacy. For further recommendations on online research, see M. Williams et al. (2017).

2

Unless otherwise indicated, I am referring to Jewish Israelis. Palestinian Israelis also are indoctrinated with the Holocaust, but their reactions and sensibilities are very different.

3

Data attest to the vast number of references to the Holocaust on Israeli Twitter in general, and not to counter-hegemonic tweets, which are discussed later. Data were obtained from a computerized scan of about 120 million tweets in Hebrew from open accounts. The scan included about 50 distinct Holocaust terms (e.g., ‘Holocaust’, ‘Nazi’, ‘Auschwitz’, ‘Hitler’). Ambiguous terms (e.g., ‘gas’) were not scanned. The scan was carried out throughout the year, including Holocaust Memorial Day and nearby dates.

4

At my request, Vigo (a company that specializes in monitoring social media) performed a computerized scan of about 50 distinct Holocaust terms on Israeli Twitter between 1 March 2016 and 28 February 2017.

5

These are two skits referring to Hitler. One portrays young Hitler in the Academy of Arts in Vienna (“The Jews Are Coming [Hayehudim ba’im],” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVINXfIQU4I), while the second depicts how and why Hitler stops the Holocaust (“A Place for Concern—Calling Off the Holocaust,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApo98-ScNs). See Steir-Livny (2017).

6

In 2015, Channel 2 political analyst Amit Segal and Ha’aretz’s diplomatic correspondent, Barak Ravid, launched two Twitter surveys that sought to explore the political affiliations of Israeli users. Summing up the results, Segal tweeted: “We can conclude [from both surveys] that there is more left on Twitter than in the general public, but less than in the past.”

7

In Hebrew, the word ‘Shoah’ (Holocaust) sounds like sha’ah (hour).

8

Other forms of oppositional cultural activities that were identified but are not discussed in this article include carnivalesque activism, the ‘pleasure principle’, and the practice of ‘everyday resistance’.

9

This tweet refers to a well-publicized incident in which, during a visit to an agricultural research center in Israel, Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel spontaneously gave the visiting Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, a research drone that was on display, thus violating export protocols and undermining groundbreaking research.

REFERENCES

  • AlexanderJeffrey C. and Shai M. Dromi. 2011. “Trauma Construction and Moral Restriction: The Ambiguity of the Holocaust for Israel.” In Narrating Trauma: On the Impact of Collective Suffering ed. Ron EyermanJeffrey C. Alexander and Elizabeth B. Breese107132. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlmogOz. 2000. The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew. Trans. Haim Watzman. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Bar-TalDaniel. 2007. Living with the Conflict: Socio-psychological Analysis of the Jewish Society in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Carmel.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BergerYotam. 2017. “Study: Israeli Politicians on Facebook Talk about Israeli Terrorism and Incitement, Not about Occupation and Peace.” [In Hebrew.] Ha’aretz12 June. https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/1.4166107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BenskiTova and Ruth Katz. 2016. “Women’s Peace Activism and the Holocaust: Reversing the Hegemonic Holocaust Discourse in Israel.” In The Holocaust as Active Memory: The Past in the Present ed. Marie L. SeebergIrene Levin and Claudia Lenz93112. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BlauSarah. 2011. “Hitler Is Looking for Parking.” [In Hebrew.] Tzav Pius28 April. http://www.tzavpius.org.il/node/5293.

  • BonillaYarimar and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. “#Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and the Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States.” American Ethnologist 42 (1): 417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BoydDanahScott Golder and Gilad Lotan. 2010. “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.” Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Honolulu5-8 January.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarrageeKevin M. 1993. “A Critical Evaluation of Debates Examining the Media Hegemony Thesis.” Western Journal of Communication 57(3): 330348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DellerRuth. 2011. “Twittering On: Audience Research and Participation Using Twitter.” Participations 8 (1): 216245.

  • EarlJenniferKatrina KimportGreg PrietoCarly Rush and Kimberly Reynoso. 2010. “Changing the World One Webpage at a Time: Conceptualizing and Explaining Internet Activism.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 15 (4): 425446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FishStanley E. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FriedländerShaul. 1990. “Opening Lecture: The Shoah between Memory and History.” [In Hebrew.] Jewish Studies 30: 1120.

  • Ibn BariSanaMaskit BendelOded Feller. 2017. Situation Report: The State of Human Rights in Israel and the OPT 2017. Association for Civil Rights in Israel 5 December. https://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/State2017.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GerbaudoPaolo. 2012. Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London: Pluto Press.

  • HallStuart. 1993. “Encoding, Decoding.” In The Cultural Studies Reader ed. Simon During90103. London: Routledge.

  • HassonNir. 2015. “What Was Netanyahu Talking about at the Official Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony.” [In Hebrew.] Ha’aretz15 April. https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/untouched/1.2615121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HemphillLibby. 2015. “Looking for (Lesbian) Love: Social Media Subtext Readings of Rizzoli and Isles.” AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research 16. https://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/1088.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HermesJoke. 2009. “Audience Studies 2.0: On the Theory, Politics and Method of Qualitative Audience Research.” Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 1 (1): 111127.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KahnRichard and Douglas Kellner. 2004. “New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging.” New Media & Society 6 (1): 8795.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KlarYechielNoa Schori-Eyal and Yonat Klar. 2013. “The ‘Never Again’ State of Israel: The Emergence of the Holocaust as a Core Feature of Israeli Identity and Its Four Incongruent Voices.” Journal of Social Issues 69 (1): 125143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LüdersMarika. 2008. “Conceptualizing Personal Media.” New Media & Society 10 (5): 683702.

  • Moody-RamirezMiaDavid Lin and Kaitlyn Rollins. 2016. “Twitter Analysis of Tweets that Emerged after the# Wacoshooting.” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 3 (9): 2436.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorrYair. 2016. “Twitter’s Inflation in Israel Has Been Exposed: Half of the Followers are Fake.” [In Hebrew.] Mako7 October. http://www.mako.co.il/nexter-magazine/Article-18348767ba72751006.htm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MuzainiHamzah and Brenda S. A. Yeoh. 2015. “An Exploration of Memory-Making in the Digital Era: Remembering the FEPOW Story Online.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 106 (1): 5364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OferDalia. 2009. “The Past That Does Not Pass: Israelis and Holocaust Memory.” Israel Studies 14 (1): 135.

  • PoellThomas and Erik Borra. 2012. “Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as Platforms of Alternative Journalism: The Social Media Account of the 2010 Toronto G20 Protests.” Journalism 13 (6): 695713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ProulxMike and Stacey Shepatin. 2012. Social TV: How Marketers Can Reach and Engage Audiences by Connecting Television to the Web Social Media and Mobile. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RadwayJanice. 1984. “Interpretive Communities and Variable Literacies: The Functions of Romance Reading.” Daedalus 113 (3): 4973.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rinkevich-PaveAyelet. 2008. “Analyzing Holocaust Universal and Particular Outlooks and Measuring Its Presence in Jewish-Israeli Day-to-Day Lives.” [In Hebrew.] MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchudsonMichael. 1997. “Lives, Laws, and Language: Commemorative versus Non-commemorative Forms of Effective Public Memory.” Communication Review 2 (1): 317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SegevTom. 1993. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust. Trans. Haim Watzman. New York: Hill & Wang.

  • ShapiraAnita. 1998. “The Holocaust: Private Memories, Public Memory.” Jewish Social Studies 4 (2): 4058.

  • ShawAdrienne. 2015. “Dialectics of Affordances: Stuart Hall and the Future of New Media Studies.” Culture Digitally 10 June. http://culturedigitally.org/2015/06/dialectics-of-affordances-stuart-hall-and-the-future-of-new-media-studies/.

    • Export Citation
  • StacheLara C. 2015. “Advocacy and Political Potential at the Convergence of Hashtag Activism and Commerce.” Feminist Media Studies 15 (1): 162164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SteinerLinda. 1988. “Oppositional Decoding as an Act of Resistance.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 5 (1): 115.

  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2014. Let the Memorial Hill Remember: Holocaust Representation in Israeli Popular Culture. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Resling.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2016. “Holocaust Satire on Israeli TV: The Battle against Canonic Memory Agents.” Jednak Ksiqzki: Gdaúskie Czasopismo Humanistyczne 6:197212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2017. “Is It OK to Laugh about It Yet? Hitler Rants YouTube Parodies in Hebrew.” European Journal of Humour Research 4 (4): 105121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vinitzky-SeroussiVered. 2010. “Generation and Collective Memory.” [In Hebrew.] Israeli Sociology 2: 502506.

  • WellerKatrinAxel BrunsJean BurgessMerja Mahrt and Cornelius Puschmann eds. 2014. Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang.

  • WilliamsSherri. 2015. “Digital Defense: Black Feminists Resist Violence with Hashtag Activism.” Feminist Media Studies 15 (2): 341344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WilliamsMatthew L.Pete Burnap and Luke Sloan. 2017. “Towards an Ethical Framework for Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation.” Sociology 51 (6): 11491168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WilliamsShirley A.Melissa Terras and Claire Warwick. 2013. “What Do People Study When They Study Twitter? Classifying Twitter Related Academic Papers.” Journal of Documentation 69 (3): 384410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WoodstockLouise. 2016. “‘It’s Kind of Like an Assault, You Know’: Media Resisters’ Meta-decoding Practices of Media Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 33 (5): 399408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yadlin-SegalAya. 2017. “‘It Happened Before and It Will Happen Again’: Online User Comments as a Noncommemorative Site of Holocaust Remembrance.” Jewish Film & New Media 5 (1): 2447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • YairGad. 2011. The Codes of Israeliness. [in Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Keter.

  • YairGad. 2014. “Israeli Existential Anxiety: Cultural Trauma and the Constitution of National Character.” Social Identities 20 (4-5): 346362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ynet. 2015. “Over 45,000 Holocaust Survivors Living in Poverty in Israel.” Ynet14 April. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4646867,00.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyal. 2006. “Critical Laughter: Humor, Popular Culture and Israeli Holocaust Commemoration.” Media Culture & Society 28 (4): 561579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyal. 2015. “‘Ketchup Is the Auschwitz of Tomatoes’: Humor and the Collective Memory of Traumatic Events.” Communication Culture & Critique 8 (1): 108123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyalOren Meyers and Motti Neiger. 2012. “Past Continuous: Newsworthiness and the Shaping of Collective Memory.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 29 (1): 6579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZimmermanMoshe. 2002. Don’t Touch My Holocaust: The Impact of the Holocaust on Israeli Cinema and Society. [In Hebrew.] Haifa: University of Haifa Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Contributor Notes

LIA FRIESEM is a graduate student in Cultural Studies at The Open University of Israel. Her research interests include contemporary Israeli society and culture with a special focus on popular and social media. Currently, she is writing her thesis on the Israeli Twitter landscape. For over a decade, she has been a journalist for Yedioth Ahronoth. E-mail: lfriesem@gmail.com

  • AlexanderJeffrey C. and Shai M. Dromi. 2011. “Trauma Construction and Moral Restriction: The Ambiguity of the Holocaust for Israel.” In Narrating Trauma: On the Impact of Collective Suffering ed. Ron EyermanJeffrey C. Alexander and Elizabeth B. Breese107132. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlmogOz. 2000. The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew. Trans. Haim Watzman. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Bar-TalDaniel. 2007. Living with the Conflict: Socio-psychological Analysis of the Jewish Society in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Carmel.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BergerYotam. 2017. “Study: Israeli Politicians on Facebook Talk about Israeli Terrorism and Incitement, Not about Occupation and Peace.” [In Hebrew.] Ha’aretz12 June. https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/1.4166107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BenskiTova and Ruth Katz. 2016. “Women’s Peace Activism and the Holocaust: Reversing the Hegemonic Holocaust Discourse in Israel.” In The Holocaust as Active Memory: The Past in the Present ed. Marie L. SeebergIrene Levin and Claudia Lenz93112. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BlauSarah. 2011. “Hitler Is Looking for Parking.” [In Hebrew.] Tzav Pius28 April. http://www.tzavpius.org.il/node/5293.

  • BonillaYarimar and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. “#Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and the Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States.” American Ethnologist 42 (1): 417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BoydDanahScott Golder and Gilad Lotan. 2010. “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.” Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Honolulu5-8 January.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarrageeKevin M. 1993. “A Critical Evaluation of Debates Examining the Media Hegemony Thesis.” Western Journal of Communication 57(3): 330348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DellerRuth. 2011. “Twittering On: Audience Research and Participation Using Twitter.” Participations 8 (1): 216245.

  • EarlJenniferKatrina KimportGreg PrietoCarly Rush and Kimberly Reynoso. 2010. “Changing the World One Webpage at a Time: Conceptualizing and Explaining Internet Activism.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 15 (4): 425446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FishStanley E. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FriedländerShaul. 1990. “Opening Lecture: The Shoah between Memory and History.” [In Hebrew.] Jewish Studies 30: 1120.

  • Ibn BariSanaMaskit BendelOded Feller. 2017. Situation Report: The State of Human Rights in Israel and the OPT 2017. Association for Civil Rights in Israel 5 December. https://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/State2017.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GerbaudoPaolo. 2012. Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London: Pluto Press.

  • HallStuart. 1993. “Encoding, Decoding.” In The Cultural Studies Reader ed. Simon During90103. London: Routledge.

  • HassonNir. 2015. “What Was Netanyahu Talking about at the Official Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony.” [In Hebrew.] Ha’aretz15 April. https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/untouched/1.2615121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HemphillLibby. 2015. “Looking for (Lesbian) Love: Social Media Subtext Readings of Rizzoli and Isles.” AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research 16. https://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/1088.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HermesJoke. 2009. “Audience Studies 2.0: On the Theory, Politics and Method of Qualitative Audience Research.” Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 1 (1): 111127.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KahnRichard and Douglas Kellner. 2004. “New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging.” New Media & Society 6 (1): 8795.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KlarYechielNoa Schori-Eyal and Yonat Klar. 2013. “The ‘Never Again’ State of Israel: The Emergence of the Holocaust as a Core Feature of Israeli Identity and Its Four Incongruent Voices.” Journal of Social Issues 69 (1): 125143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LüdersMarika. 2008. “Conceptualizing Personal Media.” New Media & Society 10 (5): 683702.

  • Moody-RamirezMiaDavid Lin and Kaitlyn Rollins. 2016. “Twitter Analysis of Tweets that Emerged after the# Wacoshooting.” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 3 (9): 2436.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorrYair. 2016. “Twitter’s Inflation in Israel Has Been Exposed: Half of the Followers are Fake.” [In Hebrew.] Mako7 October. http://www.mako.co.il/nexter-magazine/Article-18348767ba72751006.htm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MuzainiHamzah and Brenda S. A. Yeoh. 2015. “An Exploration of Memory-Making in the Digital Era: Remembering the FEPOW Story Online.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 106 (1): 5364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OferDalia. 2009. “The Past That Does Not Pass: Israelis and Holocaust Memory.” Israel Studies 14 (1): 135.

  • PoellThomas and Erik Borra. 2012. “Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as Platforms of Alternative Journalism: The Social Media Account of the 2010 Toronto G20 Protests.” Journalism 13 (6): 695713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ProulxMike and Stacey Shepatin. 2012. Social TV: How Marketers Can Reach and Engage Audiences by Connecting Television to the Web Social Media and Mobile. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RadwayJanice. 1984. “Interpretive Communities and Variable Literacies: The Functions of Romance Reading.” Daedalus 113 (3): 4973.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rinkevich-PaveAyelet. 2008. “Analyzing Holocaust Universal and Particular Outlooks and Measuring Its Presence in Jewish-Israeli Day-to-Day Lives.” [In Hebrew.] MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchudsonMichael. 1997. “Lives, Laws, and Language: Commemorative versus Non-commemorative Forms of Effective Public Memory.” Communication Review 2 (1): 317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SegevTom. 1993. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust. Trans. Haim Watzman. New York: Hill & Wang.

  • ShapiraAnita. 1998. “The Holocaust: Private Memories, Public Memory.” Jewish Social Studies 4 (2): 4058.

  • ShawAdrienne. 2015. “Dialectics of Affordances: Stuart Hall and the Future of New Media Studies.” Culture Digitally 10 June. http://culturedigitally.org/2015/06/dialectics-of-affordances-stuart-hall-and-the-future-of-new-media-studies/.

    • Export Citation
  • StacheLara C. 2015. “Advocacy and Political Potential at the Convergence of Hashtag Activism and Commerce.” Feminist Media Studies 15 (1): 162164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SteinerLinda. 1988. “Oppositional Decoding as an Act of Resistance.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 5 (1): 115.

  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2014. Let the Memorial Hill Remember: Holocaust Representation in Israeli Popular Culture. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Resling.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2016. “Holocaust Satire on Israeli TV: The Battle against Canonic Memory Agents.” Jednak Ksiqzki: Gdaúskie Czasopismo Humanistyczne 6:197212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steir-LivnyLiat. 2017. “Is It OK to Laugh about It Yet? Hitler Rants YouTube Parodies in Hebrew.” European Journal of Humour Research 4 (4): 105121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vinitzky-SeroussiVered. 2010. “Generation and Collective Memory.” [In Hebrew.] Israeli Sociology 2: 502506.

  • WellerKatrinAxel BrunsJean BurgessMerja Mahrt and Cornelius Puschmann eds. 2014. Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang.

  • WilliamsSherri. 2015. “Digital Defense: Black Feminists Resist Violence with Hashtag Activism.” Feminist Media Studies 15 (2): 341344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WilliamsMatthew L.Pete Burnap and Luke Sloan. 2017. “Towards an Ethical Framework for Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation.” Sociology 51 (6): 11491168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WilliamsShirley A.Melissa Terras and Claire Warwick. 2013. “What Do People Study When They Study Twitter? Classifying Twitter Related Academic Papers.” Journal of Documentation 69 (3): 384410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WoodstockLouise. 2016. “‘It’s Kind of Like an Assault, You Know’: Media Resisters’ Meta-decoding Practices of Media Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 33 (5): 399408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yadlin-SegalAya. 2017. “‘It Happened Before and It Will Happen Again’: Online User Comments as a Noncommemorative Site of Holocaust Remembrance.” Jewish Film & New Media 5 (1): 2447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • YairGad. 2011. The Codes of Israeliness. [in Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Keter.

  • YairGad. 2014. “Israeli Existential Anxiety: Cultural Trauma and the Constitution of National Character.” Social Identities 20 (4-5): 346362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ynet. 2015. “Over 45,000 Holocaust Survivors Living in Poverty in Israel.” Ynet14 April. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4646867,00.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyal. 2006. “Critical Laughter: Humor, Popular Culture and Israeli Holocaust Commemoration.” Media Culture & Society 28 (4): 561579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyal. 2015. “‘Ketchup Is the Auschwitz of Tomatoes’: Humor and the Collective Memory of Traumatic Events.” Communication Culture & Critique 8 (1): 108123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZandbergEyalOren Meyers and Motti Neiger. 2012. “Past Continuous: Newsworthiness and the Shaping of Collective Memory.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 29 (1): 6579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZimmermanMoshe. 2002. Don’t Touch My Holocaust: The Impact of the Holocaust on Israeli Cinema and Society. [In Hebrew.] Haifa: University of Haifa Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 13 13 13
PDF Downloads 3 3 3