Integrating non-Jewish immigrants and the formation of Israel's ethnic–civic nationhood: from Ben Gurion to the present

Abstract

The character and values of communities and countries are reflected in the way they define their boundaries and by the means they provide for those who wish to join them. Thus, immigration policy based on primordial ethnic affinities points to a society which anchors its collective identity in the past, while a state with joining rules based on individual civic requirements reflects a more open and inclusive concept of nationalism. The immigration and naturalization policy of each state is determined at the time of its inception, and the definition of these boundaries infuses practical content into its vision. However, both the vision and its content may undergo modifications depending on historical circumstances. For example, US immigration policy, adopted after the Second World War, was based on neutral criteria of immigrant admission reflecting the fact that it is a country of immigrants whose civic identity lies on individual-liberal foundations. Similarly, at the beginning of the 2000s, Germany integrated civic principles into its ethnic naturalization laws to facilitate veteran immigrants' assimilation and naturalization. On the other hand, the ethnic citizenship laws in the Baltic states, which emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, endowing citizenship to descendants of nationals despite years of their living abroad, reflect the importance of ethno-historical foundations of national identity from these countries' perspective. 1 In this article, we intend to focus on the Israeli case and explain the link between its immigration and naturalization policy and its collective self-perception. We argue that Israel's policy was designed at the time of the state's establishment by David Ben Gurion, in an attempt to construct a national Jewish identity based on a creative interpretation of religious tradition, oriented also towards building a modern inclusive Jewish nation. In Israel, as in some other countries, changes in immigration policy have been made. However, in our view, in the Israeli case, these changes have not replaced the basic principles originally set by Ben Gurion; rather, they have actually confirmed the continued commitment to these fundamental principles.

Dynamic Ethnonationalism: The Ongoing Changes in the Ethnonational Borders—Israel in a Global Perspective

“…In 1950 the Law of Return was enacted, stipulating that every Jew had the right to immigrate to Israel, while refraining from defining the term 'Jew'. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion decided to avoid reaching a decision regarding this definition in order to prevent a political conflict (Fisher and Shilon 2017). Still, the government rejected religious groups' attempts to render the entry of non-Jews from mixed families conditional upon their conversion to Judaism, and allowed their immigration to Israel throughout the decade (Hacohen 1998).…”

“…The one leader who was most central to the struggle and most influenced the shaping of the boundaries of Jewish-Israeli ethnicity was Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (Fisher and Shilon 2017). Ben-Gurion held a revolutionary Zionist-Jewish-secular ideology.…”

Secularization of immigration policy vs. religion's influence on integration: Israel's non‐Jewish Jews' immigration in a comparative perspective

“…Shapira repeated his stance but denied that he coerced those who merited an entrance permit to convert to Judaism, ‘though I certainly do always try to clarify this point too’, he added (ISA, Government Protocol). Most government members strongly opposed Shapira's policies, including Prime Minister Ben Gurion who expressed his belief that non‐Jews who join the Jewish people should be allowed into Israel (Fisher and Shilon ). A year later (1950), the Law of Return was enacted, stipulating that ‘every Jew is entitled to immigrate to Israel’.…”

“…According to Ben Gurion, by joining the Jewish people and state, they have ‘Judaized’ – a biblical act of joining the Jewish people which was employed prior to the institution of formal conversion – and therefore should be allowed to immigrate to Israel and register as Jews. He also ruled out the idea of promoting the conversion of non‐Jewish immigrants as a way to facilitate their integration into the Jewish majority (Fisher and Shilon ). Hence, it is argued that the 1958 affair in fact reflected the founding fathers' secular ideology, which laid the foundation for a secular immigration policy.…”