Ben-Gurion's Mamlakhtiyut : Etymological and Theoretical Roots

Kedar, Nir

doi:10.1353/is.2003.0007

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Ben Gurion, even cases where the monopoly has been granted to religion, such as laws of marriage and divorce, are still legally based on the republican concept of the people's sovereignty over religion. 41 However, Ben Gurion did not content himself with democraticÀrepublican arguments alone; the most important aspect in his stance was that he considered Zionism, and not religion in its halachic manifestation, to be the most authentic contemporary interpretation of Judaism. According to this outlook, Zionism constitutes an alternative to the rabbinical concept of joining the Jewish people, which was exile-related and no longer relevant, since for the first time in thousands of years, a solid Jewish majority came to dwell in the Land of Israel:…”

Section: Ben Gurion's Democratic and Jewish Ideologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fisher

Shilon

2016

Middle Eastern Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Ben Gurion's Democratic and Jewish Ideologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fisher

Shilon

2016

Middle Eastern Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This identity is based on “solidarity from within” (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002, p. 6) and on a strong ideologically oriented collective cohesion (Bar-On, 1997, p. 203). Building a Jewish national identity has been a major effort of the Zionist endeavor, which regards Israel as both a political entity and a “social and cultural integrating agent” (Kedar, 2002, p. 129). The transition of the Jewish nation from a diasporic people to sovereignty embodies a self-image of a transition from a focus on sectorial interests to a focus on the common good (Peled & Shafir, 2005, p. 38).…”

Section: Social Cohesion Solidarity and Crisis In Israelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile phone usage as an indicator of solidarity: Israelis at war in 2006 and 2009

Schejter

Cohen

2013

Mobile Media & Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a secondary analysis of real-time data of mobile phone usage in Israel during two recent wars – with the Lebanese Hezbollah in 2006 and with the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza in 2008/9. The data, provided by Cellcom Israel, the country’s largest mobile operator, enabled an analysis of real behavior patterns rather than relying on memories of people who may have been under stress or traumatized during the hostilities, hence unable to accurately recollect this information later on. During both wars, significant changes were noted in the way people used their mobile phones: There was a substantial decrease of calls originating from within a 10-kilometer region along the Israel-Lebanon border and mobile users also made significantly longer calls. However, the decrease in calls during the Lebanon War was more than double that of the decrease in the comparable region along the Gaza border. There was no significant change in the calling patterns of Israelis living outside the directly affected regions. These supposed differences in reaction to a crisis situation (which are congruent with previous mobile phone usage studies following suicide bombings) are analyzed, and questions regarding the validity of the myth of solidarity and bonding among Israelis are raised.

show abstract

“…11 The initial intention behind commemorating the Righteous thus reflected the "statist ideology" shared by the elites of the Yishuv. 12 It aimed to establish a relationship of parity between Israel and the other countries of the world. 13 It was not until 1953, however, with the adoption of the Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Law, that the "Righteous among the Nations" were legally defined by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as "high-minded gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews."…”

Section: Israel 1963: Diplomacy Righteous Among the Nations And Comentioning

confidence: 99%

From Jerusalem to Paris: The Institutionalization of the Category of "Righteous of France"

Gensburger¹

2012

French Politics, Culture &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ben-Gurion's Mamlakhtiyut : Etymological and Theoretical Roots

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Mobile phone usage as an indicator of solidarity: Israelis at war in 2006 and 2009

From Jerusalem to Paris: The Institutionalization of the Category of "Righteous of France"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ben-Gurion's Mamlakhtiyut : Etymological and Theoretical Roots

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Mobile phone usage as an indicator of solidarity: Israelis at war in 2006 and 2009

From Jerusalem to Paris: The Institutionalization of the Category of &quot;Righteous of France&quot;

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

From Jerusalem to Paris: The Institutionalization of the Category of "Righteous of France"