Cultural Ethnicity in Israel: The Case of Middle Eastern Jews' Religiosity

Abstract

National myths and public policies in Israel long assumed that the country's diverse Jewish immigrant groups would all eventually, and indeed within a short span of time, be absorbed and fused into a unified social, economic, political, and cultural entity, but this expectation is now giving way to widespread doubts as to its feasibility. Some of these doubts were expressed during the 1970s in a series of studies which demonstrated not only that there were still gaps between Israelis of Middle Eastern and North African extraction (often called Sephardim or Oriental Jews) and those of European extraction (Ashkenazim), as regards occupational and residential mobility, income and educational achievements, political representation and social prestige, but that the gaps were widening.1 The growing disillusionment on the part of Middle Eastern Jews (North Africans included) was dramatically revealed in the 1981 general elections by the emergence of a new ethnic party, Tami, which seemed to have better prospects of success and survival than any previous ethnic party. Moreover, the results at the polls obtained by most of the other parties seemed to reflect an intensifying ethnic polarity.

Unpacking secularization: Structural changes, individual choices and ethnic paths

“…Non-Orthodox Ashkenazim and FSU immigrants are more likely to identify themselves as ‘secular’ than Mizrachim who prefer to describe themselves as ‘traditional.’ This preference can be explained by the familial and communal religiosity of Middle Eastern Jews that allows flexibility and accommodation and rejects the dichotomy of religious/secular categories more common to Ashkenazim (Leon, 2009; Shokeid, 1984). The differences stretch beyond self-identity and also apply to practices.…”

“…The state’s secular elite attempted to secularize these immigrants as part of a modernization process that showed little regard for the immigrants’ traditions. However, the Mizrachim resisted secularization and developed a strategy of cultural accommodation, steering a religious path midway between Ashkenazi Orthodoxy and Ashkenazi secularism that they describe as ‘traditional’ or masorti (Shokeid, 1984). This model is based on a tradition that is open to variations in beliefs and practices and an oral tradition (different from Ashkenazi formality and its written tradition).…”

Immigration and Entry into the Cultural Mainstream

“…In contradistinction to members of the second generation, who tried to be as Israeli as possible, a process of return to roots has begun among the third generation, and participation in the Mimouna has become part of their Israeli identity. Their participation in the celebrations indicates that contrary to the past, they feel safe and more rooted in Israel society, and that the demonstration of their ethnic identity is more legitimate (Shokeid, 1984: 270–271).…”

It Takes Two for a Culture War

“…The “traditional” category many Israelis choose to describe their religiosity is not necessarily a comfortable middle position but also an identity rooted in ethnicity and culture of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa (Mizrachim) and their descendents (Shokeid, ). This model is based on a tradition that is open to variations in beliefs and practices and an oral tradition (different from Ashkenazi formality and its written tradition).…”