The Star Seen as “Zionist”

The Magen David (Hebrew: מָגֵן דָּוִד, Magen David — “Shield of David”), also known as the Star of David, is one of the most recognisable Jewish symbols. This six-pointed sign, formed by two interlaced triangles, has a rich and complex history.

In the Middle Ages, the symbol began to appear in Jewish manuscripts and on synagogues. However, it did not have an exclusively Jewish meaning and was also used in Christian and Islamic art.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Magen David acquired mystical significance in the Kabbalistic tradition. It came to be associated with the idea of protection and was used in amulets.

In the nineteenth century, with the beginning of Jewish emancipation in Europe, the Magen David became a symbol of Jewish identity. By the late nineteenth century, the Zionist movement had firmly established it as a national symbol of the Jewish people. It is important to note, however, that wearing the “Shield of David” as an ornament did not necessarily mean that a person belonged to the Zionist movement. The Magen David had acquired a broader cultural meaning that went beyond political movements.

After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, the Magen David acquired a new, deeper meaning. It came to embody not only Jewish identity, but also the extraordinary resilience of a people in the face of unimaginable trials. For Soviet Jews, the “Shield of David” became a sign of survival and spiritual steadfastness, recalling a tragic past while offering hope for the future.

Nevertheless, the Soviet leadership, prone to suspicion and to searching for hidden threats, interpreted this ancient Jewish symbol exclusively through the lens of political ideology.

Thus, in March 1953, Petro Vilkhovyi, the Commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the Ukrainian SSR, drew attention to the spread of symbols he considered Zionist within Kyiv’s Jewish community. In his appeal, he noted the presence of “Zionist emblems” — the “Shield of David” — on both new and old tombstones in the Jewish cemetery in Kyiv.

Vilkhovyi gave specific examples: on the monument to a woman named Burman, dated 1949, the portrait of the deceased was placed in a frame in the shape of a “star”; on the monument to D. M. Chyhyrynskyi, dated 1946, there was also a “star”; and on Lerner’s family vault, a “star” appeared on both the doors and the marble plaque. In addition, Vilkhovyi noted that after renovations in 1950, a “new ark” bearing the same symbols had been installed in the Kyiv synagogue, and that the same emblems were embroidered on new tallit prayer shawls.

In connection with this, Comrade Vilkhovyi requested clarification on a number of issues. He wanted to know whether artels had the right to produce tombstones bearing these emblems, and whether synagogue leaders could be required to remove the “Shield of David” from religious objects.

He also asked how the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR would assess possible measures by the city council to remove these symbols from monuments and ban their production, and how those who made such objects should be characterised if they were brought to account.

The author expressed the view that if, before the creation of the State of Israel, these symbols had had a religious character, they had now acquired a Zionist meaning. He considered it necessary to “wage a decisive struggle” against this phenomenon.

This document vividly illustrates the strengthening of antisemitic policy in the USSR after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. This event became a turning point in the Soviet authorities’ attitude toward the country’s Jewish population.

Traditional Jewish symbols such as the Magen David, which had been an integral part of Jewish religious and cultural identity, suddenly acquired a new and politically dangerous meaning in the eyes of the authorities. They came to be seen not simply as expressions of religious and communal belonging, but as signs of potential disloyalty to the Soviet state and sympathy for the Zionist movement.

Petro Vilkhovyi’s letter and a selection of documents on the state of Kyiv’s Jewish community can be found on our website.

Freddy Rotman