This article tackles the multifaceted question of why Israel adopted an open immigration policy in 1948 and adhered to that policy in spite of the proven difficulties it inflicted on the state. The main supposition made is that the immigration policy of the young State of Israel did not constitute a drastic change from earlier Zionist approaches and practices. It was, rather, the implementation of Zionist policy that emerged in the 1930s and heightened in the 1940s, but could not be carried out as long as the Zionist Organization lacked sovereignty and the British controlled the gates of Palestine. The article elaborates on the motivation for the futile attempt made at the end of 1951 to employ some measures of regulation in immigration. It suggests that they stemmed not only from the lessons of the mass immigration of 1948–1951, but also from the fact that in late 1951 the Jewish people and Zionism were not suffering a period of national emergency as the very existence of Israel was no longer in jeopardy and no Jewish community around the world was under acute threat. Finally the article interprets the criticism of the attempts at regulation as utilizing a Zionist rationalization, expecting Israel to act differently from other immigrant states.
ZIONIST IMMIGRATION POLICY PUT TO THE TEST
Historical analysis of Israel’s immigration policy, 1948–1951
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
![Editing Services Awareness English-speaking]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/111054/Resources-Scientific-Editing-Services.jpg"})
Log in via your institution
Log in to Taylor & Francis Online
Restore content access
Restore content access for purchases made as guestPDF download + Online access
- 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
- Article PDF can be downloaded
- Article PDF can be printed
Issue Purchase
- 30 days online access to complete issue
- Article PDFs can be downloaded
- Article PDFs can be printed
Purchase access via tokens
- Choose from packages of 10, 20, and 30 tokens
- Can use on articles across multiple libraries & subject collections
- Article PDFs can be downloaded & printed
per package
Notes
1. The State of Israel, Official Gazette 1, 5 Iyar 5708 (14 May 1948).
2. Great Britain, Colonial Office, Palestine: Statement of Policy by His Majesty’s Government, London, 1939, Cmd. 6019.
3. The State of Israel, Official Gazette 2, 12 lyar, 5708 (21 May 1948).
4. Divrei haknesset, I (8 March 1949): 60–3.
5. Passed by the Knesset on 20 Tammuz 5710 (5 July 1950) and published in Sefer hahukkim 51, 21 Tammuz 5710 (6 July 1950): 159. The Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza’ot hok 48, 12 Tammuz 5710 (27 June 1950): 189.
6. For a critical approach to Zionist immigration policy, see Beit Zvi.
7. The Council of the League of Nations, “The Palestine Mandate”, 24 July 1922, Article 4. The document recognized a “Jewish Agency” for that purpose, but stated that: “The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency.” The Jewish Agency was established in 1929, composed of Zionist and non‐Zionist members on a parity basis. The terms “Zionist Organization” and “Jewish Agency” are synonymous throughout this article.
8. The Palestine Gazette, 15 May 1925.
9. For an abridged discussion in English, see Halamish (“A New Look”).
10. For a survey and analysis of Zionist immigration policy between the end of the First World War and the early days of Israeli statehood, see Gelber (“Me’al ta’alu”).
11. For a comprehensive survey and analysis of Zionist immigration policy in the 1930s, see Halamish (Bemerutz kaful). A concise description in English of “the rules of the game” in matters of immigration to Mandatory Palestine is presented in Halamish (“A New Look”).
12. These calculations do not include Egypt, which held a distinct status in the Zionist Organization (see Kimche). All in all, North African Jews (Morocco: 1,091, and Tunisia: 408 combined: 1,499) constituted only a fraction of a per cent (0.16) of the Zionist Organization membership (928,250) in 1937 (Hakongress hatziyoni ha’esrim, xiv–xv).
13. The case of Yemen is presented in Halamish (“A New Look”).
14. Meeting of the Zionist Executive, 26 June 1938, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem (hereafter, CZA), S/100.
15. Report of the Palestine Royal Commission, presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the United Kingdom Parliament by Command of His Britannic Majesty, London, July 1937, Cmd. 5479.
16. Great Britain, Colonial Office, Palestine: Statement by His Majesty Government, London, November 1938, Cmd. 5893.
17. Ben‐Gurion at the Jewish Agency Executive meeting, 11 December 1938, CZA, S/100.
18. Ha’olam, 4 December 1938.
19. “Statement by the Jewish Agency for Palestine”, 22 November 1938, CZA, S7/756; M. Shertok to M. MacDonald, 23 November 1938, CZA, S7/756.
20. See, e.g., Penkower. A large number of articles and books were written in this spirit in Hebrew, and the issue was best summarized by Michman.
21. This claim was put first by Frizel in 1980.
22. See Meir‐Glitzenstein (“From Eastern Europe”). This article is the most comprehensive and detailed discussion of the subject, though some of the interpretations suggested by the author are, in my opinion, arguable.
23. Passed by the Knesset on 24 Av 5714 (23 August 1954) and published in Sefer hahukkim 163, 3 Elul 5714 (1 September 1954): 174. The Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza’ot hok 192 (5714): 88.
24. Passed by the Knesset on 2 Adar Bet 5730 (10 March 1970) and published in Sefer Hahukkim 586, 11 Adar Bet 5730 (19 March 1970): 34. The Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza’ot hok 866 (5730): 36.
25. E.g., in the peak year of immigration to the United States (1907), the existing population was 87,008,000 persons (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1907.html#us; accessed 1 July 2006) and the number of immigrants 1,285,349 (Ziegler 17).
26. Divrei haknesset 3 (21 November 1949): 128.
27. Divrei haknesset 1 (8 March 1949): 54.
28. The exact figure is 47,331 (Hacohen, Immigrants, 267).
29. The exact figure is 35,422 (Hacohen, Immigrants, 267).
30. Rumania: 1950 – 47,041; 1951 – 40,625; from Iraq: 1950 – 31,627; 1951 – 88,161 (Hacohen, Immigrants, 267).
31. For a detailed account of the deliberations that took place at the Jewish Agency Executive in November 1951, see Tsur (“Ha’ba’aya ha’adatit”, 92–106).
32. For a thorough description and interpretation of that article by Gelblum and his entire series of article entitled “For One Month I Was a New Immigrant”, see Tsur (“Carnival Fears”).
33. For figures on the composition of the immigration to Israel in those years, see Hacohen (Immigrants, 267–8, Appendices A and B).
34. Complaints about the negative composition of immigration from Rumania expressed in the Jewish Agency Executive discussions in November 1951 (see Tsur, “Ha’ba’aya ha’adatit”, 93–4).
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.