Dalia Ofer, Holocaust Survivors As Immigrants

Holocaust Survivors as Immigrants: The Case of Israel and the Cyprus Detainees
Author(s): Dalia Ofer

Source: Modern Judaism, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-23
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1396144
Accessed: 27-04-2016 21:59 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern
Judaism
This content downloaded from 195.220.106.16 on Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:59:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Dalia Ofer
HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS AS
IMMIGRANTS: THE CASE OF ISRAEL
AND THE CYPRUS DETAINEES*
INTRODUCTION
This paper centers on a group of Holocaust survivors known as the

"Cyprus detainees," who set out for Palestine in a wave of illegal immi-
gration and, beginning in August 1946, were detained by the British on
Cyprus, before eventually gaining admittance to Palestine.' In examin-
ing their absorption and integration into the new Israeli society, the
focus will be placed on three main issues: how wartime experiences af-
fected Holocaust survivors' ability to return to normal life; the addi-
tional impact of the Cyprus detention on this particular subgroup and
their overall capability to be absorbed into the society.
All of the issues noted above were discussed at the time both by the
survivors themselves and by others, including Jewish relief officials, UN
relief groups and emissaries of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in
Palestine). Concerning the Yishuv, it is important to note that it was a
community in the process of nation-building and as such its dominant
ideology stressed communal needs over those of the individual.
Before turning to the Cyprus detainees, a few words are in order re-
garding the wide-scale immigration of Holocaust survivors and others to
Israel. Following the establishment of the state in May 1948, the provi-
sional government terminated all restrictions on Jewish immigration to
the country. The next three years are known in the literature as the
"years of mass immigration." The Yishuv, which had numbered some
670,000 on the eve of independence, absorbed 717,923 immigrants by
the end of 1952, among them 373,852 Holocaust survivors. The number
of immigrants per 1,000 people living in Israel was 236 in 1948 and 266
in 1949-a huge ratio when compared to that of other countries that
had experienced substantial immigration; in 1913, for example, the
comparable figures were 12.1 for the United States, 38.4 for Canada,
38.3 for Argentina, and 7.7 for Brazil.2
*I would like to thank Dr. Nahum Bogner for the valuable assistance he gave me in re-
searching this work.
Modern Judaism 16 (1996): 1-23 ? 1996 by TheJohns Hopkins University Press
2 Dalia Ofer
The first wave of mass immigration to Israel was that of Holocaust

survivors, which began in 1946 and continued through May 1948 as a
movement of more than 100,000 people who set out to defy British pol-
icy. The term "Holocaust survivors" refers to all those Jews who were in
occupied Europe and who suffered directly from Nazism, including
those who lived in countries allied to or collaborating with the Nazis
(such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and Croatia) and those
who managed to escape to the Soviet Union during the war and who
were repatriated to Poland in the years 1945-46. Such a definition re-
flected the Zionist understanding of what constituted a survivor, and it
was also used by the survivors themselves in their writings, public decla-
rations, and private correspondence.3
It is very difficult to estimate the total number of survivors. At war's
end, the number in Germany was estimated to be between 50,000 to
80,000, but many died in the first months after liberation. However,
there were also large numbers of survivors in Eastern Europe and the
Balkans: some 400,000 Jews in Romania, 143,000 in Hungary, 40,000 in
Bulgaria, and-after the repatriation from the Soviet Union-some
130,000 in Poland. The movement of Jews from country to country and
their concentration in Germany, Austria, and Italy during the years
1946-47 brought the number of Jews in the displaced person (DP)
camps to approximately 200,000 byJanuary 1948.
Not allJews, of course, wanted to leave Europe or to immigrate to Is-
rael. Of 779,000 immigrants to Israel in the years 1946-53, a total of 48.6
percent were Holocaust survivors. However, this percentage fluctuated.
Between 1946 and 1948, there were 162,914 immigrants, of whom 85-95
percent were survivors. In 1949 the figure fell to 67 percent (some
95,000 out of a total of approximately 142,000) and the percentage
thereafter declined further.4
Free and unrestricted immigration was a basic tenet of Zionism that

dovetailed with the new state's desire to enlarge itsJewish population. In
its initial stages, immigration was also vital to the very survival of the
state. Between November 1947 and January 1949, when Israel was fight-
ing the War of Independence, some 125,000 survivors immigrated;
many of these took an active part in combat.5 However, despite the gov-
ernment's preference for able-bodied immigrants of military age, immi-
gration was not really selective; Jews from all walks of life came to Israel,
most of them from the DP camps. Understandably, both the war and its
cessation had a significant impact on the absorption of these immi-
grants. Following the war, for example, the government was anxious to
populate land that had been gained in battle or abandoned by Arabs.
Without the new immigrants, its massive settlement scheme would not
have materialized.
Holocaust Survivors as Immigrants 3
THE CYPRUS DETAINEES
A significant subgroup of immigrants among the survivors were 51,530

people who had been deported to Cyprus. Beginning on August 13,
1946, British policy was to deport illegal immigrants who reached Pales-
tine for detention in Cyprus. From November 1946 until May 1948,
these detainees were allowed into Palestine at a rate of 750 people per
month, half the total quota of 1,500 per month. During 1947-48, special
quotas were given to pregnant women, nursing mothers, and the el-
derly. Cyprus detainees-numbering approximately 26,000-repre-
sented 67 percent of the immigrants who came to Palestine between
November 1946 to mid-May 1948, and almost 40 percent (some 13,000)
of the immigrants who arrived between May and September 1948, the
peak months of the War of Independence. The last groups of detainees,
totaling approximately 11,000, immigrated between January and Febru-
ary of 1949.6 Cyprus detainees represented all categories of Holocaust
survivors. A majority of them (60 percent) had been in the DP camps,
while others came from the Balkans and other East European countries.
A very small group ofJews from Morocco was also in Cyprus.7
Highly motivated to get to Palestine, the Cyprus detainees became a
symbol of the survivors' determination to make a new life for themselves
in the Jewish homeland. As such, they were accorded special respect by
members of the Yishuv, who shared their pain when the immigrants
were deported by the British. The encounter between the social, eco-
nomic and political reality in Palestine/Israel, the "veterans" (a third of
them had themselves arrived less than a decade before the state was es-
tablished) and the Cyprus detainees was significant. Its analysis con-
tributes to the understanding of the factors that shaped Israel's
wide-scale immigration absorption effort. Thus, despite a methodologi-
cal difficulty in preparing a full demographic account of the Cyprus de-
tainees in the absorption process, they merit attention as a distinct
category of Holocaust survivors.8
The main thesis of this paper is that the Cyprus detainees repre-
sented the survivors of the Holocaust who integrated into Israeli society
very quickly and strongly identified with its visions and concerns; their
experiences during and after the war were not an impediment to their
absorption but actually assisted in it. They were strongly motivated to
return to normal life and appreciated the opportunity to work and es-
tablish a family. However, the first steps of absorption were full of
frustrations and disappointments, and triggered many anxieties based
on survivors' past experiences.
4 Dalia Ofer
IMMIGRANTS, HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS, AND THE CYPRUS DETAINEES:

A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Holocaust survivors as immigrants can be divided into two groups with

somewhat different demographic attributes: A) immigrants who arrived
between 1946 and May 14, 1948; and B) immigrants who arrived be-
tween May 15, 1948 and 1953.
Table 1.a. Age Distribution of Group A Immigrants
Age Percent
0-4 4.7
5-19 30.5
20-40 45.4
40-60 7.4
60+ 6.3
unknown 5.7
SOURCE: Sicron Supplement, p. 11, Table 17A.
Table 1.b. Age Distribution of Group B Immigrants
Age Percent
0-4 10.4
5-19 15.8
20-40 38.0
40-60 23.2
60+ 12.6
SOURCE: Sicron 1957, p. 46, Table 7
The demographic attributes of the detainees in October 1947 were as

follows:
Table I.c. Age Distribution of Cyprus Detainees
Age Number Percentage

0-4 619 3.5
5-12 414 2.3
13-18 2,961 16.8
19-35 11,334 64.3
36-50 1,759 10.0
51+ 538 3.1
SOURCE: Scha'ari 1981, p. 300.
The Cyprus detainees' profile was closer to that of group A immigrants,

with some 80 percent of them between the ages of 13-35. The number
of elderly and very young people was relatively small, although it is
worth noting that 2,200 babies were born on the island. Among the
8,000 young people aged 12-18 were 6,000 who had lost both parents.
While both groups consisted primarily of those of working age,
group B included more old people and very young children; a situation
that was due to the presence of a larger number of families from East-
ern Europe and the Balkans who came after the establishment of the
state, when the voyage to Israel was no longer perilous or illegal. Simi-
larly, as suggested in Table 2, women may have been more hesitant to
make the trip in the period before May 1948.9
Although no records were made regarding the educational levels of the

Cyprus detainees, the educational level of Holocaust survivors in gen-
eral was below that of Palestine veterans but above that of immigrants
from Islamic countries (see Table 3). The Cyprus group appears to have
been less educated than the above groups. However, the testimony of
emissaries from Cyprus stressed the detainees' desire for learning. In
July 1947, for example, teachers from Palestine established the Rothberg
seminar for adult education in Cyprus (called "the open university" by
the detainees), and 1,800 students graduated from it during the one-
and-a-half years it operated."l
There are no details about the occupational structure of the Cyprus
detainee group. However, there is information about the immigrants of
1947, of whom 67.7 percent (13,352 of a total of 19,702 immigrants that
were registered by the Jewish Agency) had been Cyprus detainees.'2
Only 35 percent (3,401 persons of working age) were registered as hav-
ing an occupation. In comparison, among the other 6,350 immigrants
that year-all Holocaust survivors-59 percent of those of working age
registered an occupation. Many were too young to have a profession,
and since they had not been able to study during the war years they were
trying to gain some manual qualifications. Of the young adults, some
had learned professions in the Nazi forced labor camps or in the Soviet
Union; for many of these, working skills were connected to painful
memories that led them to despise their jobs. Taking Holocaust sur-
vivors as a whole, 47 percent had been in crafts and industry, 12 percent
in technical and white-collar occupations (education, medicine and en-
gineering), 12.5 percent in trade and sales, 10.4 percent in clerical jobs
and administration, 5.6 percent in construction, 5 percent in transporta-
tion and 1.7 percent in agriculture (the rest had no profession). The
percentage of individuals in agriculture and white-collar professions was
far lower than among the veteran Yishuv community. This occupational
structure allowed most survivors to find their way in the new Israeli
economy, although many had to change their profession or take special
training courses supplied by the state.13
6 Dalia Ofer
Table 2. Gender Distribution
Male Female
1946-1948 55.0% 1946-1948 45.0%

1948-1953 49.3% 1948-1953 50.7%
Cyprus 66.0% Cyprus 33.0%
SOURCES: Line 1, Sicron Supplement, Table A13; Line 2, Sicron Supplement,

Table A23; Line 3, Bogner, pp. 221
Table 3. Educational Attributes of Holocaust Survivors Above Age 14
Level of no school attended graduated graduated higher

education elementary elementary high education
(%) school school school
Males 2.6 33.1 41.2 18.3 4.8
Females 6.3 31.9 40.6 19.2 2.0
The above information reflects the influence of the war on the sur-
vivors in general. Demographically, the greatest loss was of children of
all ages and of older people. The large numbers of newborn and very
young children (ages 0-4) was a reflection of the vitality of the survivors
and their will to reproduce (there were 41 births per 1000 people in the
DP camps in Germany, as compared to 20 in Israel today). The large
number of orphans in Cyprus and the relatively large numbers of chil-
dren aged 5-18 among group A immigrants illustrated the priority
given by policy-makers to bringing in children through the framework
of Youth Aliyah, a special institution established in 1934 to bring Ger-
man youth to Palestine. After the war, Youth Aliyah became the most im-
portant rescue organization for orphans and children. During the years
1946-1948, Youth Aliyah and the Cyprus detainees accounted for well
over half the total number of new immigrants.'4
THE VETERANS AND THE NEW IMMIGRANTS: MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS
In January 1947, half a year after the deportations to Cyprus began, a re-
port on the detainees' situation was delivered to the Executive Commit-
tee of the Histadrut labor federation, one of the central institutions
involved in immigration and absorption. The report, delivered by
Aharon Ze'ev, a teacher from Tel Aviv who was an emissary in Cyprus,
emphasized various misconceptions held by the Yishuv about the
Cyprus detainees-that they were unwilling to do physical work, selfish,
had the mentality of survivalism, etc.-he himself confessed that he had
subscribed to such images.15 According to Ze'ev, the detainees were in-
fact people suffering from an unbearable thirst for Palestine that dis-
Table 4. Educational Attributes of Palestine Veterans* Above Age 14
Level of no school attended graduated graduated higher

education elementary elementary high education
(%) school school school
All - 20.0 39.0 26.4 5.5
SOURCE: Patinkin 1960, p. 27, Table 4

*people living in Israel before May 19481'(
tracted their attention from their present plight and that concealed the
pain and suffering of their past. The nature of their longing, he contin-
ued, was a profound one that did not derive from any ideology or phi-
losophy. The illegal immigrants had made up their mind to reach
Palestine, since in spite of all the dangers and difficulties of the voyages
this had seemed the most hopeful course of action. They were looking
for a way of life and a community that would enable them to liberate
themselves from their personal anguish. Ideological concepts about the
future of the Jewish people and their need for a homeland were not the
key to understanding their motivations, such that the Yishuv should not
expect them to be pioneers dedicated to creating new ways of life. What
the Yishuv needed to do was to listen to the immigrants' hopes and de-
sires and appreciate that stability, a home, a family, and a good job were
their principal requirements.
Giora Yosephthal, the official in charge of absorption in the Jewish
Agency-the body that represented the Zionist movement in Palestine
and that constituted the executive and bureaucracy of the Yishuv-also
discussed the survivors at many meetings of the Jewish Agency and His-
tadrut. Although they were lonely and needed a community to lean on,
he argued they were also individualistic and cherished their freedom.
They were tired of living according to a strict regimen, as had been the
case for years in the camps, but they did not know how to be alone and
use their time creatively. The survivors' mentality Yosephthal explained,
was that "I deserve something because of my past": the Yishuv, the Jews,
and humanity in general owed them compensation. Whether Yoseph-
thal was right or wrong, the attitude of most veterans towards the sur-
vivors was precisely the opposite: in their view, it was the survivors who
were obligated to the new state. Once they arrived in Israel they were
expected to join the task of "nation-building," which involved treating
earlier hardships as unavoidable first steps in the absorption process.16
The basic attitude of many veterans was that they knew what was best for
the newcomers, and this attitude remained basically unchanged despite
articles and meetings devoted to the subject of the new immigrants'
emotional needs.17
Many veterans in the labor movement, in towns and on kibbutzim
8 Dalia Ofer
reacted to the difficulties of the new immigrants by arguing that "when

we came to the country, things were more difficult." Such a patronizing
attitude reduced the immigrants to a cohort of undifferentiated recruits
whom the veterans were to transform into true pioneers: if immigrants
successfully integrated into the society, this was a proof that the veterans
had managed to do a good job. Some extreme examples of this attitude
were found in articles in labor newspapers and in speeches at kibbutz
conventions that expressed a low opinion of the survivors, particularly
those of the death camps, alongside the self-assured declaration that
"we [the veterans] had to transform these dust of men into a newJewish
community; it was an enormous task fraught with many difficulties and
crises."'8 The new research by Hanna Yablonka and 'Irit Keynan on the
absorption of Holocaust survivors and on the attitudes of emissaries of
the Yishuv towards the survivors support these conclusions.19
Another major gap between the veterans and the survivors was
demonstrated through their different personal and communal memo-
ries. Veterans would often relate tales of their pioneer years in Palestine
in an effort to familiarize the new immigrants with the "Zionist experi-
ence," but survivors were generally unreceptive, since they resented
being preached to and sometimes suspected the authenticity of the nar-
rator's adherence to the principles being avowed. Moreover, while veter-
ans had been safe in Palestine during the war years, survivors carried
painful memories of that period that were almost impossible to share-
and veterans, for their part, were not usually willing to listen.2' Summa-
rizing the problem, Yosephathal had stressed that the veterans needed
to have faith in the survivors' desire to recover and return to normal
life, and should give up attempting any kind of ideological recruit-

ment.21 Some veterans were sufficiently tolerant and enlightened to
offer to act as Yosephthal had recommended-in some cases offering to
speak to the immigrants after they had time to settle down. Greater sen-
sitivity was also demonstrated towards the youngsters of Youth Aliyah
and the younger orphans among the children. Their teachers and tutors
expressed sympathy and compassion, even though they too were often
judgmental and insisted on their right as educators to mold and shape
their students.22
INITIAI, PHASES OF THE ABSORPTION PROCESS
In Cyprus the detainees had experienced a strong sense of losing pre-

cious time: they had been on the brink of escaping DP status but were
now caught again. A similar frustration was felt by those who reached
Cyprus from the Balkans who had not previously experienced DP camp
life. When they finally arrived in Palestine or Israel, they were under-
standably eager to start "real life." In most cases, however, there were
further delays. Detainees who arrived in Palestine before 1948 usually
spent several weeks in local detention camps until their certificates were
distributed by the British. The situation in general was vague and con-
fusing; many did not have any practical plans and thus waited for Yishuv
authorities, friends and/or relatives to guide them, realizing that they
were not really ready to make any final decisions about where to go and
what to do.
Those immigrants who arrived after the establishment of the state

had a somewhat similar situation. They were able to stay a few weeks in
special immigrant houses or small camps. Food was free and provided
by a central kitchen. Once they found work, however, they had to leave
the camp or immigrant home and start their own life.
Immigrants who belonged to a political movement affiliated with
the kibbutzin-about 90 percent of the Cyprus detainees fit this cate-
gory-did not necessarily have an easier time. Seen up close, the spar-
tan life of a collective settlement did not look so romantic. Friends and
relatives were not encouraging, and the rules and regulations of collec-
tive life were somewhat reminiscent of the camps. Many immigrants
were also hesitant about going to remote places in the Galilee or theJez-
erel Valley. They preferred the idea of a big city, where they would feel
free to get lost in the crowd and not be observed too closely by their
peers or the community. There they would be masters of their own fate
and could pursue their own private goals. Thus, while it was not easy to
break with an organized framework that had supported them after the
war and in the camps, many decided to go it alone.
"All that the immigrants wanted was to get to Tel Aviv," complained
one of the members of the Histadrut executive.23 Certain measures were
taken to facilitate absorption and integration-both out of a genuine
desire to aid the survivors and the wish to prove that the Yishuv was able
to house and provide for its newcomers. The immigrants received basic
necessities from the absorption section of the Jewish Agency, including
a bed, mattress, blankets, and sheets. More important was the assistance
in finding housing in special immigrant homes where four single per-
sons shared a room and a family of three got a room to itself. The Jewish
Agency also rented rooms in private homes for the new immigrants and
paid the rent for the first six months.24 Health insurance was provided
by the health system of the Histadrut or by Hadassah hospitals in
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (supported by the Zionist women's organization
of the U.S., established in 1912). These facilities only became available at
the end of 1946, becoming more organized in 1947 as absorption re-
ceived more attention in anticipation of a substantial influx of Holo-
caust survivors.
During their initial period in the country, the new immigrants were
10 Dalia Ofer
expected to find a job. The labor market at this time was guided by an
egalitarian policy: new immigrants and unemployed veterans, in partic-
ular demobilized soldiers from the British Army, were allotted a certain
number of working days a month. The Jewish Agency's highest priority
was to promote construction and especially agriculture. Thus, to some
extent, its immigration department and absorption section sought to di-
rect the immigrants to specified areas and fields of work through its dis-
tribution of housing and employment.25 At the same time, agency
officials had to take into account the constraints of the labor market,
which offered more jobs in larger cities and established villages. There
was also a serious housing shortage, although the World War II ban on
private construction was partially eased in 1947.26 The Jewish Agency
could initiate construction only where the Jewish National Fund pos-
sessed non-agricultural land, which was often nowhere near existing
centers of employment. After September 1948, when the number of im-
migrants per month climbed to more than 10,000 (reaching a peak of
35,000), the problem became more acute, and new immigrants were set-
tled in recently abandoned Arab towns and villages with no resident vet-
eran Jewish community.
There were considerable differences between the manner of ab-
sorption of immigrants in cities and towns and in smaller places such as
moshavoth-villages that had a mixed private agricultural and small-
scale industrial economy. Both economically and socially, life was easier
in the city, especially until the end of 1948. The moshavoth offered mostly
seasonal agricultural work, which was new to most immigrants and phys-
ically very difficult for all but the strongest, in particular during the long
hot season when most of the work had to be done. Moreover, most im-
migrants wanted a profession, and while they appreciated work in indus-
try or-to a lesser extent-construction as offering some promise of
security, agriculture was not considered a suitable vocation.27
In the small moshavoth, the new immigrants were concentrated in
special housing and were isolated from the farmers and their families;
their only contact with them was through work. Once the number of im-
migrants increased, the issue of their social and cultural absorption
arose, and this posed a problem for the veteran population of the
moshavoth, who reacted with a certain amount of resentment. Relations
were far better between the immigrants and members of voluntary or-
ganizations such as Working Mothers and the Women's International
Zionist Organization (WIZO)-which organized child care services, lec-
tures, Hebrew classes, and immigrant/veteran contacts-and those as-
sociated with clubs set up by the culture department of the Histadrut
and, later, the Ministry of Education and Culture.28
Since most Cyprus detainees did not have a profession, they were
spared the difficulty of having to change their occupation, unlike many

of the Holocaust survivors who came later from Eastern Europe, or
the immigrants from Islamic countries.29 As a group, the Cyprus de-
tainees were more willing to start with agricultural or other manual
work. Some went to special training courses offered by the Histadrut,
and a number of young women studied nursing and child care in special
courses offered in the hospitals. In this framework of study they were
provided with room and board, and their job prospects were good,
since the need for professional welfare workers increased with the mass
immigration.30
The minority of Cyprus immigrants who had a white-collar profes-
sion (such as teaching, nursing, or other paramedical occupations) or who
had a high school education and knew Hebrew found work in schools,
immigrant camp operations, medical services, and other absorption-
related fields.31 Those Cyprus immigrants who arrived prior to May 1948
enjoyed the advantage of being more settled when the mass immigra-
tion started in September of that year.
Employment reports from the end of 1948 showed that the demand
for labor was quite significant. Because of the war the need for indus-
trial and agricultural products and services increased. The labor market
offered a variety of jobs to skilled and unskilled workers and the immi-
grants were ready to accept almost any job-to the great satisfaction of
one Histadrut executive who noted that "this immigration is good from
the point of view of work; all of our fears were unfounded ... the peo-
ple want to work."32 Over the next few months, however, there were
many fluctuations in the labor market, and by March of 1949, fears were
being expressed about the possibility of widespread unemployment
after the end of the citrus season. The number of immigrants per
month during the early months of 1949 had averaged 25,000; and the
25,000 new immigrants in transit camps in March of that year were not
even included in the labor statistics.33
Housing problems eased considerably during the summer and fall
of 1948, as places in abandoned Arab towns and villages became avail-
able. Some 55,000 rooms in cities and towns were under the control of
the state by March 31, 1949. Although a large number of the rooms had
to be repaired because of damage sustained during the fighting, these
became the main source of housing for the immigrants of 1948-1949. By
the end of April 1949, a total of 89,781 new immigrants were housed in
deserted towns and villages-52,000 of them in Haifa and Jaffa.34 How-
ever, by the spring of 1949 this source of housing was also exhausted; by
May 1949, more than 60,000 new immigrants were in transit camps,
where many remained for an extended period of time.35
A May 1949 report on Ramlah and Lod provides a more detailed
12 Dalia Ofer
picture of the absorption process in two towns. In Ramlah, 2,874 rooms

and 405 businesses were left vacant after the Arabs were expelled, while
in Lod the figures were 2,894 and 447, respectively. The two towns were
repopulated from the beginning of 1949, with a demographic structure
as follows (Table 5):
Table 5. Demographic Structure of New Immigrants

in Ramlah and Lod
Number of Persons by Group, Gender, and Age

Lod Ramlah
Families 2446 2450

Persons 7898 7586
Women - 2705
Men - 2516
Children 2267 (to age 12) 2365 (to age 17)
Main Countries of Origin by Family
Lod Ramlah
Poland 817 909

Bulgaria 504 677
Romania 238 342
Turkey 168 125
Morocco 164 6
Algeria 57 140
Yugoslavia 123 19
SOURCES: Table 5, CZA S43/100, Report on the absorption of immigrants in Lod,

January 9, 1949-May 15, 1949; Report on the absorption in Ramlah to May 29, 1949
In Lod, 78 percent of the families were Holocaust survivors; in Ramlah,

87 percent. The number of people from Islamic countries, mainly
Turkey and North Africa, was between 12 and 22 percent.
The vocational distribution is available for Ramlah only. Nineteen
percent of the people aged 17-50 had a vocation. The two largest
groups were 121 shoemakers and 120 tailors. Another 223 persons (al-
most 25 percent of those with a profession) represented a variety of
white-collar professions: teachers, rabbis, doctors, lawyers, and others.
There was little industry in Ramlah, partly because electrical sup-
plies were limited. The 11 factories (there is no information as to how
many people each employed) included one that made shoes, three that
produced textile factories, and two carpentries. There were also 20
smaller businesses. Among heads of families, 312 (16 percent) received
government assistance in the form of relief supplies of groceries and
other necessities; many of this number were handicapped people who
were unable to do physical work. Eighty-nine heads of families (4 per-
cent of the total) worked in factories and industries, another 60 (2.5
percent) did clerical work, and a further 60 were organized in agricul-
tural cooperatives in the town. Forty-nine widows, who were the heads of
their families (2 percent of the total) carried out a variety of service
jobs. Of the 1,434 (58.5 percent) heads of families registered at the
labor exchange as looking for work, only 547 (22 percent) had even
temporary work; some 887 heads of families (36 percent) were totally
unemployed.
The situation in Lod was no better. The report on this town empha-
sized a shortage of skilled labor in construction and agriculture that
could be overcome only if some of the new immigrants underwent re-
training. Only half of the 1,350 persons who were registered in the labor
agency received work, and of them only half had a steady job.
Neither town had running water nor electricity for private homes.
Both towns received assistance from various agencies and voluntary or-
ganizations; schools were opened, health services were provided by the
Histadrut, and social clubs were in operation. Nevertheless, the new im-
migrants were isolated and had little contact with the veteran commu-
nity.
There is no information on how many of the Cyprus detainees set-
tled in these two towns. However, a majority of the Cyprus group was al-
ready settled by January 1949, when new immigrants were sent to
Ramlah and Lod. Many of the group had used their special housing
privileges to settle in Haifa and Jaffa. The situation in these areas was
better both because there was a greater chance of finding work and be-
cause the proximity to a veteran community offered more chances for
integration.
NEW IMMIGRANTS AND THE KIBBUTZIM
The kibbutzim had great hopes of the Holocaust survivors (and in par-
ticular the Cyprus detainees) joining their movement in large numbers.
The population of the kibbutzim had increased considerably by the end
of World War II. The most dramatic rise was one of 259 percent between
September 1944 and September 1945 (from 13,606 to 35,260), at the
end of which time the kibbutzim accounted for some 6 percent of the
total population of the Yishuv (up from 5 percent at the beginning of
World War II.)36 By September 1947, the figure had risen to 45,041, or 7
percent of the population. In 1950, however, this percentage had de-
creased to 5.5 percent (57,810 people lived on kibbutzim, out of a total
population of 1,202,993). The majority of the small but constant flow of
Cyprus detainees (750 per month) confounded expectations by choos-
ing not to join the kibbutzim, and among other immigrants the percent-
age joining the kibbutz movement was even smaller.37
14 Dalia Ofer
During 1947 and 1948, members of the labor movement in general

and the kibbutz movement in particular became alarmed. Whereas 9
percent of the new immigrants went to kibbutzim in March 1947, only
5.5 percent did so in April, and 6 percent in May-and the numbers de-
creased further in 1948.38
This was a great disappointment to those in the Yishuv elite who be-
longed to the labor movement. The kibbutzim included among its
members a number of leaders of illegal immigration operations and
heads of missions to the DP camps in Europe, while many others were
involved with the underground defense forces in Palestine (in particu-
lar, the select Palmah unit). The kibbutz movement hoped to use new
immigrants to replace those members involved in national missions.
Leaders of the Histadrut were disappointed as well that only a third of
the new immigrants joined the labor federation. They too had hoped
that a larger proportion of the new immigrants would work in agricul-
ture, either in the kibbutzim or in non-collective agricultural settle-
ments.39
It was agreed that a variety of factors caused immigrants to resist the
kibbutz way of life: some of them lacked the ideological commitment or
an understanding of the importance of agriculture to a viable Jewish so-
ciety; those who left the Soviet Union rejected the communal life as sim-
ilar to that of the Soviet kolkhoz; and immigrants from the Balkans, who
generally detested the policies of the Communist parties in their coun-
tries, saw too great a resemblance between Communism and the kib-
butz.40
Such factors notwithstanding, the kibbutz and Histadrut leaders

were not ready to give up on the immigrants. A number of ideas were
advanced on the issue of how to win more recruits. Some centered on
better educational work in the diaspora before the immigrants reached
Palestine/Israel. This seemed especially important in Cyprus, where the
number of potential "joiners" appeared to be the largest (as noted,
some 90 pecent of the detainees belonged to a youth movement or po-
litical party affiliated with the kibbutzim). It was also suggested that
emissaries should assign certain immigrant groups to specific kib-
butzim; again, Cyprus seemed a good place to start.41 Direct contacts
with new immigrants arriving in transit camps in Palestine was also
viewed as important. Members of the kibbutzim envisaged sending spe-
cial envoys to look for those who had been affiliated with the movement
in the past, and at the same time to approaching young families and
couples. It was expected that as the absorption process became more
difficult and as the numbers of immigrants waiting in the transit camps
grew larger, the kibbutz movement would appear to be more attrac-
tive.42
Changes were also initiated within the kibbutzim themselves. New
immigrants were offered 52 working days for the study of Hebrew, and
other subjects, they were granted special traveling days to see the coun-
try and meet relatives, and various social and cultural activities were de-
signed for them-for instance, young mothers were instructed in the
ideology and day-to-day functioning of the kibbutz educational system.
Kibbutz members were encouraged to open their homes and create an
intimate environment for the newcomers. Veteran kibbutzniks, however,
often found the new demands on them difficult: as one activist admitted
at a kibbutz general assembly, "we like the immigration but we don't like
the immigrants."43
With the outbreak of the War of Independence, the kibbutzim be-
came actively involved in combat. The number of casualties was high,
and this put a heavy burden on other members. As more people were
recruited, the immigrants became a vital component of the kibbutz
work force; under such circumstances, few of the special arrangements
could continue. Many of the immigrants, unable to read a newspaper or
follow a radio report, felt alienated and isolated. Others, however, be-
came more dedicated and involved. With the easing of the general situa-
tion after July 1948, the immigrants shared the positive experience of
being part of a community that had succeeded in overcoming the diffi-
culties of the war. At this point, there were a number of calls for a return
to the special absorption system.44
CONCLUSION
As has been suggested, Holocaust survivors in general and the Cyprus

detainees in particular integrated into the Israeli economy rapidly. The
younger the immigrants, the more easily they adapted; although many
did not have a profession, they succeeded in entering the labor force
and starting vocational training. The immigrants also became accus-
tomed to the spartan lifestyle that characterized Israel during the 1950s,
when there was an economic austerity plan, rationing of food and cloth-
ing, and a flourishing black market.
The most difficult period of the mass immigration to Israel started
in the spring of 1949 and continued for several years. The number of
immigrants was very high and the tension between the absorption au-
thorities, the immigration department of the Jewish Agency, and the
government mounted. Not until 1952 did the number of immigrants de-
crease, remaining low for the next four to five years. By 1961, Israel's
population had reached almost two million, including 870,000 (43 per-
cent of the total) who had arrived after May 1948. Of that number,
397,295 were Holocaust survivors. The census of 1961 provides a good
deal of data that aids in an evaluation of the immigrants' absorption,
16 Dalia Ofer
but reveals little about the Cyprus immigrants in particular since they
are listed by country of origin and are thus swallowed up in the Europe-
America (EA) group. From the data it is possible to compare Holocaust
survivors as immigrants with the pre-state immigrants and those immi-
grants from Islamic countries (AA) who comprised 57 percent of the
total number of immigrants. After 10-13 years in Israel, their absorption
could be evaluated according to the following categories: earning and
occupation; use of Hebrew; and size of family.
Table 6. Distribution by Occupation (Abroad and in Israel)

of Men Below the Age of 60 Who Were 24-54 Years Old
at the Time of Immigration (in percentages)
professional, trades, Total Percent who

managerial, agents, White- Blue- did not change
clerical sales, collar collar Farmers occupation
Occupation abroad up to 1947

Europe-America 31.1 29.2 60.3 35.2 4.5 57.0
Africa-Asia 14.5 40.4 54.9 43.5 1.4 53.0
Occupation abroad 1948-54

Europe-America 22.8 33.9 56.7 42.0 2.3 58.6
Africa-Asia 18.0 34.1 52.1 45.9 2.1 48.3
Occupation in Israel up to 1947

Europe-America 37.9 12.6 50.5 42.9 6.6
Africa-Asia 17.2 19.0 36.2 52.7 10.9
Occupation in Israel 1948-54

Europe-America 25.9 14.3 40.2 51.7 8.1
Africa-Asia 15.6 9.4 25.0 51.6 23.5
SOURCE: Yoram Ben-Porath in: Michael Curtis and Mordechai S. Chertoff (eds.),
"On East-West Differences in Occupational Structure in Israel," Israel Structure
and Change, p. 994.
KEY: EA-Europe-America; AA-Asia-Africa
We learn from Table 6 that 41.4 percent of the 1948-54 EA immigrants

(the Holocaust survivors) had to change their occupations. The largest
single move was from white-collar professions to blue-color occupations.
Within the white-collar sector, the decrease was in trades, agents, and
sales-from 33.9 percent abroad to 14.3 percent in Israel. The greatest
increase was in the blue-collar sector, from 42.2 percent abroad to 51.7
percent in Israel. Meanwhile, the greatest proportional change was in
the farming sector, which accounted for only 2.3 percent of jobs abroad,
but 8.1 percent in Israel. EA immigrants who had arrived before 1948
showed proportionally greater representation in the white-collar sec-
tor- particularly in the professional and managerial occupations-and
less in the blue-collar sector; the figures are 50.5 percent and 42.9
percent, respectively. This demonstrates the lower educational levels
among the immigrants of 1948-54.
In general, the ability to move from one profession to another is an
indication of adaptability, but in this case it also underlines the dra-
matic and difficult changes the immigrants had to go through. Fully 51.7
percent of AA immigrants between 1948-54, for example, had to
change their occupations; there were significant movements out of the
white-collar sector (52.1 percent abroad to 25.0 percent in Israel) and
into farming (2.1 percent abroad to 23.5 percent in Israel).
According to the census of 1961, a total of 66.4 percent of the civil-
ian male work force of 1948-54 EA immigrants was fully employed, com-
pared to 55.7 percent of the same category among AA immigrants.
Among pre-1948 immigrants, 80 percent of the same category was em-
ployed.45 By 1961, the earning of families of Holocaust survivors was 95
percent of the average family income, while pre-1948 EA immigrants
earned 125 percent of the average; and 1948-54 AA immigrants earned
77 percent.46
Use of Hebrew
Among male Holocaust survivors who immigrated between 1948-54, the

literacy rate was 97.6 percent, but only 72.9 percent were literate in He-
brew. (Since Hebrew was the language of the liturgy most traditional
male Jews knew it). Only 45.6 percent of male immigrants aged 45-49,
and 29.3 percent aged 60+, could read Hebrew. The literacy rate in He-
brew among male immigrants aged 30-44 was 67.8 percent.
Hebrew literacy was lower among EA women: only 55.8 percent of
them were literate in Hebrew, as against a 94.9 percent literacy rate in
their first languages.
Among 1948-54 AA immigrants, 86.2 percent of males were liter-
ate in Hebrew, while 82.2 percent were literate in another language.
Among AA women the picture was more complex: among adult women
aged 15-44, literacy levels were lower than among women of European
origin, whereas from age 45+, they were higher. Literacy levels were
uniformly higher among pre-1948 immigrants (98 percent for both
groups).47
Of those Holocaust survivor immigrants with an academic degree,
22.3 percent had received it in Israel.48
18 Dalia Ofer
Size ofFamily
Families of Holocaust survivors were smaller than those of EA pre-state

immigrants. The average number of children born to EA women who
immigrated between 1948-54 and married in Israel was 1.2, and of
those who had married abroad, 2.1. EA pre-state women had an average
of 2.3 children if they had married in Israel, and 2.4 if they married
abroad. This figure suggests the economic difficulties of the immigrants.
The number of married women (first marriage only) among Holocaust
survivors who did not give birth is 10.9 percent, which is considerably
higher than the figure for EA pre-state immigrants (6.8 percent) or for
AA women of both periods (4.5 percent for pre-state and 7.2 percent for
those who immigrated 1948-54). Such figures may be explained by the
fact that many women survivors married late and/or had been injured
in Nazi medical experiments. The census also notes that families of
Holocaust survivors had fewer dependents, which could explain the
large investment made in education among those Holocaust survivor
families with children, and a larger than average investment in housing
and household.49 One likely explanation is that with fewer dependents
to care for, survivor parents could afford to invest more in these areas.
Taken as a whole, the census data demonstrate a successful absorp-
tion of Holocaust survivors relative to the other immigrant groups. Fears
concerning the possible consequences of inadequate rehabilitation
seem to have been unfounded. The number of Holocaust survivors re-
emigrating during the years 1948-56, for instance was 30,046, only
about 8 percent of the total.5" However, further qualitative research
needs to be done on the subject.
The objective parameters of absorption demonstrated above show
that Holocaust survivors integrated into the new society. This is, how-
ever, only one side of the picture. As Hanna Yablonka has shown, Holo-
caust survivors had a subjectively difficult time during the first stage
after arrival, in no small part because of the Israeli veterans' ambivalent
attitudes towards them.
Nonetheless, the fact that this group of immigrants arrived at the

same time as a wide-scale immigration from Islamic countries eased
their situation, since they were more capable of finding their way in a
Western society. Moreover, coexisting with the veterans' ambivalence
was a feeling of identification with the survivors, because of their war ex-
periences and as products of a common European background.
The personal experiences and memories of the survivors which
were dormant for a number of years became more vocal in the 1960s
after the Eichman trial (1961) and the Six-Day War of 1967. Thus, Holo-
caust experience was shared to a larger extent within the Israeli society
and was integrated into its collective memory.
NOTES
1. On the issue of illegal immigration (Known in Hebrew as ha'apalah, or

'aliyah bet), see Dalia Ofer, Escaping the Holocaust: Illegal Immigration to the Land of
Israel, 1939-1944 (New York, 1990).
2. Moshe Sicron, Immigration to Israel, 1948-1953 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem,
1957), pp. 26-27 (henceforth, Sicron 1957).
3. Among Holocaust survivors, sub-grouping was very important: there
were the cazets (survivors of concentration camps); the partisans; the ghetto
fighters; and the "Asians" (those repatriated from the Soviet Union) as well as
others, such as people who lived in hiding in occupied Europe and those who
came from the Soviet Union. All had radically different war experiences. How-
ever, the experience of surviving was common to all, along with a sense that the
experience would in some way or the other motivate their future. See Hannah
Yablonka, Holocaust Survivors in the State of Israel, 1948-1952 (Hebrew), (Je-
rusalem, 1994), pp. 62-70 (henceforth: Yablonka 1994).
4. Sicron 1957, Statistical Supplement (henceforth, Sicron Supplement) pp. 2,
20, 23. In 1950, survivors numbered 49.8 percent of the immigrants; in 1951,
28.6 percent; in 1952, 26.2 percent; and the following year, 19.6 percent.
5. Ibid.; See also Hanna Yablonka 1994, Supplements, pp. 269-272 (Tables 1
and 2).
6. This number is based on a report from Famagusta (Cyprus) by Rabbi J.
Schreibum (the representative of the immigration department of the Jewish
Agency), 21 October 1948, Central Zionist Archive (henceforth, CZA) S6\4326;
(All archival material and newspaper articles here and elsewhere, unless other-
wise noted, are in Hebrew.) See also Sicron Supplement, pp. 2, 20, and David
Scha'ari, The Cyprus Detention Camps for the Jewish Illegal Immigrants to Palestine,
1946-1949 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1981), Appendix, Table 16, p. 364 (hence-
forth, Scha'ari 1981). The discrepancies between the total of 51,530 deported to
Cyprus and the slightly lower number of immigrants is a result of difficulties in
listing the immigrants until September 1948. A number of immigrants who were
hospitalized or detained for short periods of time in Atlit, a camp in Palestine,
were also not listed.
7. For further information on the Cyprus experience, see Scha'ari 1981;

Nahum Bogner, The Deportation Island: Jewish Illegal Immigrant Camps on Cyprus,
1946-1948 (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1991) (henceforth, Bogner 1991).
8. In the Israeli statistical data after May 1948, the immigrants were regis-
tered according to the countries of origin. Therefore it is very difficult to follow
the Cyprus detainees shortly after they arrived into the country. It is possible
however, to come to conclusions about their absorption process through careful
examinations of general data that would concern the immigrants in the months
that the Cyprus group comprised a high percentage of the immigration. An-
other factor thatjustifies the implication from the general data of European im-
migrants lies in the fact that in December 1947, two illegal boats, the Pan York
and the Pan Crecend, arrived in Cyprus with 15,000 illegal immigrants from Ro-
mania. The demographic profile of these immigrants was more regular than
that of the previous Cyprus detainees. This factor further justifies the use of
general absorption data to characterize the Cyprus detainees. For more details
20 Dalia Ofer
on this group see, Ze'ev Zachor and Venia Haddari, Ships or State (Hebrew) (Tel
Aviv, 1981).
9. Numbers were combined from Sicron Supplement, p. 22 and Bogner
1991, pp. 219-235.
10. Moshe Sicron, "Mass Immigration: its Characteristics and Influences"
(Hebrew), Idan 8 (1988), pp. 31-52. See also Don Patinkin, The Israeli Economy in
theFirst Decade (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1960), p. 27. It is important to note that the
figures for veterans in Palestine include the statistics for immigrants from Eu-
rope, Asia and Africa as well as for those born in Israel. The Israel-born have the
highest educational level.
11. Bogner 1991, pp. 229-235.
12. "Jewish Immigration to Palestine 1947," report of the statistical depart-
ment of the Jewish Agency, Israel State Archive (henceforth, ISA), Ministry of
Labor Gimel (G/) 5366/186 (Hebrew).
13. Sicron 1957, p. 96.
14. Mark Dworzetski, "Demographic Problems of the Immigration of Holo-
caust Survivors" (Hebrew), in Second World Jewish Congress for Jewish Studies
(Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 27-28; See also idem, "The Surviving Remnant in Israel"
(Hebrew), Gesher, Vol. 1 (1956), pp. 83-115.
15. Haganah Archive (henceforth, HA), 4608.
16. Kibbutz Meuhad Archive (henceforth, KMA), 47\6\7, 2 March 1947, Gen-
eral Assembly of the Kibbutz in Gevat.
17. See, for example, the comments of Adah Fishmann (in charge of absorp-
tion at the Histadrut labor federation) at the executive meeting of 23 April 1947,
Lavon Archive (henceforth, LA).
18. Haim Dan, "The Dream and its Solution" (Hebrew), Hapo'el Hatzair (in
English, "The Young Worker"-a newspaper affiliated with the governing Mapai
labor party), 11 January 1949. See also Izhak Koren, "The Immigration: Where
To?" ibid., 2 March 1948. In an article of 5 February 1948 in the working women's
newspaper Devar Hapoeleth, Nehamah Hoffman called for a program in which
new immigrants would be hosted in private homes in the first stages of absorp-
tion, both to alleviate the housing shortage and to enable the immigrants to
"watch and learn the simple and healthy lifestyle in Palestine."
19. Yablonka 1994; 'Irit Keynan, "The Yishuv's Mission to the Displaced Per-
sons Camps in Germany: The Initial Steps, August 1945-May 1946," in She'erit
Hapletah, 1944-1948: Rehabilitation and Political Struggle, Proceedings of the Sixth
Yad Vashem International Historical Conference (Jerusalem, 1991), pp.
231-248; Irit Keynan, "She'erit Hapletah: immigrants or Olim," in Iyunim Bitku-
mat Israel: Studies in Zionism and the State of Israel, (ed.) Pinhas Genosar, Vol. 1
(1991), pp. 343-358.
20. Zror Mikhtavim ("A Handful of Letters"-a newspaper of the Kibbutz
Meuhad movement), Vol. 11, No. 187, (252) 14 March 1947, Aharon Raichman;
ibid, 27June 1947; Yablonka 1994, pp. 62-70.
21. See Raichman, Zror Mihtavim, Vol. 11, No. 187 (252), 27 June 1947; in
agreement with Yosephthal, he urged that survivors be talked to in an intimate,
personal manner and that their points of view be respected and accepted.
22. Numerous records describe youth in the different schools and organiza-
tions of the kibbutzim, villages and towns. Among the many articles published at
the time are those in Devar Hapoeleth, 5 February 1948; and Aliyah (a quarterly on
the issues of Youth Aliyah), November 1947-January 1948. For a more compre-
hensive report, see the protocol of the secretariat, 26 April 1950, see KMA,
1-b\8\39a. Of some 8,600 Youth Aliyah immigrants who arrived during October
1946-May 1948, 65 percent were from Cyprus.
23. Protocol of the Histadrut Executive (henceforth: PHE), 23 April 1947,
LA. On the unclear feeling of the Cyprus immigrants after arrival see: Protocol
of the executive of the Jewish Agency (PEJA), 1 June 1947 CZA: (discussion
about unemployment in general and the suffering of the Cyprus immigrants in
particular); also see "A Report for Cyprus," protocol of the secretariat, 31 August
1947, KMA, 1-b\7\9, 16 February 1949, 1-b\8\35a.
24. Special Planning Report on Housing Construction For the Immigrants
From the Camps in Cyprus and Others, 21 December 1947, CZA S13/65. For
problems of unemployment and housing see also discussion in the executive of
theJA, June 1 1947, note 23.
25. The issue was raised in a number of meetings of the Histadrut executive:
I refer in particular to the meeting of 23 April 1947 (see the speech of Adah
Fishmann) and of 12 November 1947 (see Yosephthal).
26. For a comprehensive report on the construction in Palestine-Israel, see
Ernest Lehman, Joint Archive Israel (henceforth: GJA), Malben files, November
1948, 111/1/2.
27. Yafah Broide, "How Shall We Absorb the New Immigrants Today?" Devar
Hapoeleth, 7July 1947.
28. LA, PHE (23 April 1947), Yafah Broide, Devar Hapoeleth, July 7 1947;
Nadia Sohovolski, "New Immigrants in the Kirya," ibid., 14 October 1947; Rivkah
K., "In the New Immigrant's House in Petah Tikvah", ibid., (Hebrew) 17 Decem-
ber 1947. For an expression of the veterans' resentment regarding the choices
made by the new immigrants as to where to live and work, see Koren, "The Im-
migration: Where To?" where he notes that the mass immigration from Cyprus
should be "the first warning to us that we cannot give free choice in absorption
matters to the tens of thousands of new immigrants."
29. "The Jewish Immigration to the Land of Israel 1947," information of the
statistical department of theJewish Agency, 6June 1948, ISA, g/5366/186.
30. Oral testimony of Yehudah Pearst, Oral History Division, Institute of
Contemporary Jewry, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mass Immigration
Project, no. 3442.
31. Oral testimony of Israel Raviv (Ravschzinski), ibid., no. 3460.
32. Mr. Frumkin, LA, PHE (11 November 1948).
33. LA, PHE (16 March 1949).
34. The total number of immigrants who settled in Tel Aviv, Jewish Haifa,
and the moshavoth was 10,921; in the cooperative villages [moshavim] and kib-
butzim, 4,959. See the report concerning the property of missing Arabs, ISA,
prime minister's office, 31 March 1950. Gimel g/5440/210/05 (1582); for the
number of immigrants who were settled in the abandoned places, see report on
the activities of the absorption department, 1 September 1948 to 30 April 1949.
35. Giora Yosephthal, "Report on the Housing Situation up Until May 1949,"
22 Dalia Ofer
6 December 1948, CZA S 57/129, ibid., "Possibilities and Absorption Needs of

Immigrants until February 1949," (December 1948); ibid., Zvi Herman to the ex-
ecutive of the Jewish Agency, S 41/247, 23 April 1949. On the number of immi-
grants in the transit camps and the conditions there, see the report on the
activities of the absorption department, 1 September 1948 to 30 April 1949, GJA,
Malben, 111/1/2.
36. The immigrants during this year came from parts of Europe that were
being liberated. The war in the Balkans ended in August 1944, at which point
immigration increased. Jewish refugees who reached Spain and Portugal during
the war arrived in Palestine, as did refugees from southern Italy.
37. Sources for these numbers are Ze'ev Tzur, Hakibbutz Hameuhad in the Set-
tlement of the Land, Vol. 2, 1939-49 (Tel Aviv, 1982), pp. 184; Sicron Supplement
pp. 3, 23; and David Horowitz, The Israeli Economy (Hebrew), (Tel Aviv, 1954),
pp. 175 (henceforth, Horowitz 1954).
38. Report by Yosephthal, LA, PHE (23 April 1947). A. Reichman, "In the
Field of Absorption," Zror Micktavim, Vol. 11, No. 192 (257), 27 June 1947. For a
more elaborate discussion of the integration of Holocaust survivors in the kib-
butzim and the Histadrut, see Yablonka 1994, pp. 155-225.
39. Kibbutz Assembly in Gevat, 2 March 1947, KMA, 1/6/5/, ibid., 1/3/II (the
17th convention of Hakibbutz Hameuhad, October 18-24, 1949, conclusions on
immigration and absorption). Expanded agricultural settlement was also in the
interest of the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government, which needed to sup-
ply more food and to utilize large areas of cultivated land that was deserted by
Arabs who fled during the War of Independence. In general, agriculture had a
central role in the new Israeli state.
40. Many sources confirm these arguments. To mention just a few: A. Reich-
man, "Problems of Absorption," a lecture in the kibbutz committee, Zror Mikh-
tavim, Vol. 11, No. 187 (252), 14 March 1947, pp. 269-276, and others in the same
meeting. The immigrants from Cyprus are referred to as one of the most impor-
tant groups of immigrants for the kibbutzim; see Ze'ev Meinrat, "Immigration
and Absorption," ibid., Vol. 14 (1950), pp. 93-103; LA, PHE, 3 November 1948.
41. Ibid.; see also Brackah Rechtman, on the issues of absorption in the kib-
butz assembly, 6 November 1948, KMA 5\12\3.
42. During 1948, the kibbutzim absorbed some 4,500 new immigrants, in the
following year, the figure was 8,072. The growth of the numbers did not corre-
spond with the growing immigration. See "Report on the Absorption of Immi-
grants in the Kibbutzim," 2 February 1949, and 1 March 1950, KMA II\3\1. On
the competition between kibbutzim and other forms of agricultural settlement
to gain more of the new immigrants see: Yablonka 1994, pp. 166-174.
43. Brackah Rechtman in a speech at the kibbutz assembly, 6 November
1948, KMA 5\12\3. See also Yablonka, 1994 pp. 178-181.
44. Kibbutz secretariat, 15 August 1948; KMA 1-b\8\35 Zror Mikhtavim, Vol.
14, Report on Immigration and Absorption to the General Assembly of the Kib-
butzim, 18-24 October, pp. 93-103.
45. Census of Population and Housing 1961, Booklet 42, Table 91, Central Bu-
reau of Statistics, (Jerusalem, 1964), (henceforth, Census 1961).
46. Statistical Abstract of Israel 1964, Central Bureau of Statistics 1964, p. 832.
47. Census 1961, Booklet 35, Table 66, p. 100.

48. Census 1961, Table 3, p. 4.
49. Census 1961, Booklet 24, Table 47, p. 117; Table 12, p. 35.
50. I wish to thank Mr. David Simrot for providing me with this number,
which is derived from the Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1962, Table 17, p. 112.

Dalia Ofer, Holocaust Survivors As Immigrants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dalia Ofer, Holocaust Survivors As Immigrants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dalia Ofer, Holocaust Survivors As Immigrants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Holocaust Survivors as Immigrants: The Case of Israel and the Cyprus Detainees

Author(s): Dalia Ofer

This paper centers on a group of Holocaust survivors known as the

Modern Judaism 16 (1996): 1-23 ? 1996 by TheJohns Hopkins University Press

The first wave of mass immigration to Israel was that of Holocaust

Free and unrestricted immigration was a basic tenet of Zionism that

THE CYPRUS DETAINEES

A significant subgroup of immigrants among the survivors were 51,530

IMMIGRANTS, HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS, AND THE CYPRUS DETAINEES:

Holocaust survivors as immigrants can be divided into two groups with

Table 1.a. Age Distribution of Group A Immigrants

SOURCE: Sicron Supplement, p. 11, Table 17A.

Table 1.b. Age Distribution of Group B Immigrants

SOURCE: Sicron 1957, p. 46, Table 7

The demographic attributes of the detainees in October 1947 were as

Table I.c. Age Distribution of Cyprus Detainees

Age Number Percentage

SOURCE: Scha'ari 1981, p. 300.

The Cyprus detainees' profile was closer to that of group A immigrants,

Although no records were made regarding the educational levels of the

Table 2. Gender Distribution

1946-1948 55.0% 1946-1948 45.0%

SOURCES: Line 1, Sicron Supplement, Table A13; Line 2, Sicron Supplement,

Table 3. Educational Attributes of Holocaust Survivors Above Age 14

Level of no school attended graduated graduated higher

THE VETERANS AND THE NEW IMMIGRANTS: MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS

Table 4. Educational Attributes of Palestine Veterans* Above Age 14

Level of no school attended graduated graduated higher

All - 20.0 39.0 26.4 5.5

SOURCE: Patinkin 1960, p. 27, Table 4

reacted to the difficulties of the new immigrants by arguing that "when

life, and should give up attempting any kind of ideological recruit-

INITIAI, PHASES OF THE ABSORPTION PROCESS

In Cyprus the detainees had experienced a strong sense of losing pre-

Those immigrants who arrived after the establishment of the state

spared the difficulty of having to change their occupation, unlike many

picture of the absorption process in two towns. In Ramlah, 2,874 rooms

Table 5. Demographic Structure of New Immigrants

Number of Persons by Group, Gender, and Age

Families 2446 2450

Poland 817 909

SOURCES: Table 5, CZA S43/100, Report on the absorption of immigrants in Lod,

In Lod, 78 percent of the families were Holocaust survivors; in Ramlah,

NEW IMMIGRANTS AND THE KIBBUTZIM

During 1947 and 1948, members of the labor movement in general

Such factors notwithstanding, the kibbutz and Histadrut leaders

Changes were also initiated within the kibbutzim themselves. New

As has been suggested, Holocaust survivors in general and the Cyprus

Table 6. Distribution by Occupation (Abroad and in Israel)

professional, trades, Total Percent who

Occupation abroad up to 1947

Occupation abroad 1948-54

Occupation in Israel up to 1947

Occupation in Israel 1948-54

KEY: EA-Europe-America; AA-Asia-Africa

We learn from Table 6 that 41.4 percent of the 1948-54 EA immigrants

Among male Holocaust survivors who immigrated between 1948-54, the

Families of Holocaust survivors were smaller than those of EA pre-state