?ORARY JEWRY URIELY 27

PATTERNS OF IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION ¥av. 1964. ·Bnei-Tovim: Middle and WITH JEWISH AMERICANS AMONG ISRAELI Israel. • Sociology and Social Research IMMIGRANTS IN CmCAGO: VARIATIONS ACROSS STATUS AND GENERATION Aspects of Treatment and Patterns of the Bnei-Tovim.· Human Relations 19: Natan Uriely Ben Gurion University r Metaphor. New York: Vintage Books. (Co1llempOraryJewry v. 16 1995) th of Drug Takers in the Mass Media.• This article examines the relationship of one set of newcomer '"f!aeture of News: Social Problems, immigrants to their potential ·proximal host group· in the United ~ia, edited by Stanley Cohen and Jock States. Specifically, the relationship of recent higher status and lower status Israeli immigrants in Chicago and their children to Jewish Americans is examined. Field work, including in-depth interviews with Israeli immigrants and their children and participant observation, indicates that lower status Israeli immigrants seek to identify with Jewish Americans and to integrate into the Jewish American community. In this regard, they differ from both their higher status counterparts and the second generation offspring ofboth status groups who reject such identification and integration.

One recent focus of the study ofethnic relations in the United States is on the relationships between newcomer immigrants and their potential co-ethnics in the host society. Rumbaut and Portes (1990) suggest that the nature of these relationships can affect the future of well established and developing ethnic identities in the United States. Nevertheless, much of the sociological analysis regarding the relationships between newcomer immigrants and their potential co­ ethnics has been focussed on the former's adaptation in the host society (Waters 1991; Mittelberg and Waters 1992; Gold 1992, 1994). In this cont~xt, special attention has been given to the factors that might affect the newcomers' orientation towards their possible identification with well ~blished ethnic groups in American society. Apparently, the willingness of newcomer immigrants to identify with their potential co­ ethnics is due to both structural and cultural circumstances in the immigrants' homeland and in their host society. Mit~iberg and Waters (1992) offer what they call the ·proximal host model· to describe a process of possible identity formation following migration. The model suggests that the identity of recent immigrants·in the host country can be determined by the existence of a proximal host group, i.e., the ethnic group in which the newcomers 28 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URIE are assigned to by natives of the host country. Recent immigrant groups In any case, for Israeli immiJ might reject their identification with the ·proximal host· group or ·proximal host· group is the Jewi alternatively, integrate into American society through a process of analysis," undertaken in this study, assimilation into the ·proximal host· group. Americans may facilitate the undci These alternative possibilities were discussed by Waters (1991), newcomer immigrants to their pote who analyzes and compares ethnic identity ofprofessional and working these relationships is also relevant to class West Indian immigrants and their children. Her findings indicate in the formation of ethnic communit that the children of middle class West Indian immigrants in the United States reject their racial identification with African Americans and ISRAELI IMMIGRANTS ~ distinguish themselves from other Americans on an ethnic or national origins basis. By contrast, the children of working class West Indian Studies ofIsraeli immigrants in th immigrants are assimilated to American society through identification although Israeli immigrants stress m with African Americans. Thus, adaptation to the host society through identity, they also express strong at identification with the ·proximal host· group is seen as an option taken perceive themselves as part of the by some newcomers and rejected by others. Thus, the question, recent study indicates that Israeli e; addressed in this study, arises as to what factors might reinforce or oriented towards and involved in th discourage such ethnic choices. Waters' (1991) findings suggest that the Gold (1992, 1994). Moreover, seven socio-economic background of the newcomers and the social status of immigrants in America become moR the ·proximal host· group are relevant factors. More specifically, religious attachment, in the host Waters (1990, 1991) suggests that one's optional identification with homeland (Kimhi 1990; Mittelberg a ethnic groups is related to one's perception of the relative social However, Shokeid (1988; 1993) rankings of the ethnic groups themselves. Thus, the willingness of Jewish identity, Israeli immigrants an. newcomer immigrants to identify with their ·proximal host· group is and alienated from each other. He (S determined by the former's perception regarding the social status of the estrangement is related to the lICCeJ latter in the receiving country. community of the Zionist ideology's Rumbaut and Portes's (1990) study of the possible emergence of Israel and immigration to Israel, respc: supranational ethnic minorities in the United States also examines the latter and delegitimizes the former. m cross ethnic identificationamong potential co-ethnics. Specifically, they Israel as yerida or descent and emiJ refer to the creation of the Hispanic and the Asian ethnic minorities in down} in contradiction to immigrants the .united States. The formation of these supranational ethnic those'\vho go up. Shokeid suggests tI minorities originates in the host country through the unified ethnic ideology is also a source of feelings labeliJg ,of immigrants from different countries in Latin America and towards ,Jewish Americans. He claims: the Far'!East. However, the formation of these new ethnic minorities stigma'bsociated with the status of )0 ~ires also the williligness of the newcomer immigrants themselves United .States distingtlish themselve to identify with their Hispanic or Asian co-ethnics. It is yet to be refusing·to be recognized as ·Diaspol determined if recent Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican immigrants in Uni~ Shokpd (1988» also refers to the States will identify themselves as members of the Hispanic determinBilts of a division between community. or if recent Koreans, Filipinos and Vietnamese immigrants Americans. Specifically, he mentio will identify as Asians (Lieberson and Waters 1988; Rumbaut and religiously . oriented and synagogu Portes'1990). AmeriCans, and the secular orientatio[ (about 80 percent) including most c ?ORARY JEWRY URIELY 29

host country. Recent immigrant groups In any case, for Israeli immigrants in the United States, the !Il with the ·proximal host· group or ·proximal host· group is the Jewish American community. ThuS, merican society through a process of analysis,· undertaken in this study, of their relationship with Jewish host· group. Americans may facilitate the understanding of the relationship of ies were discussed by Waters (1991), newcomer immigrants to their potential co-ethnics. The analysis of Dic identity ofprofessional and working these relationships is also relevant to more general recent developments IIld their children. Her findings indicate in the formation of ethnic communities in the United States. II West Indian immigrants in the United lification with African Americans and ISRAELI IMMIGRANTS AND JEWISH AMERICANS bcr Americans on an ethnic or national children of working class West Indian Studies ofIsraeli immigrants in the United States have indicated that American society through identification although Israeli immigrants stress national origin or Israeli sources of -, adaPtation to the host society through identity, they also express strong attachment to their Jewishness and al host· group is seen as an option taken perceive themselves as part of the Jewish people (Elizur 1980). A ected by others. Thus, the question, recent study indicates that Israeli entrepreneurs in Los Angeles are ; as to what factors might reinforce or oriented towards and involved in the local Jewish economic enclave Waters' (1991) findings suggest that the Gold (1992, 1994). Moreover, several studies have reported that Israeli : the newcomers and the social status of immigrants in America become more Jewish, in terms of identity and re relevant factors. More specifically, religious attachment, in the host country than they were in the ; that one's optional identification with homeland (Kimhi 1990; Mittelberg and Waters 1992). me's perception of the relative social However, Shokeid (1988; 1993) suggests that despite their shared ; themselves. Thus, the willingness of Jewish identity, Israeli immigrants and Jewish Americans are separated tify with their ·proximal host· group is and alienated from each other. He (Shokeid 1988, 1993) argues, such "Ception regarding the social status of the estrangement is related to the acceptance by the American Jewish community of the Zionist ideology's evaluations of emigration from 90) study of the possible emergence of Israel and immigration to Israel, respectively. That ideology values the ; in the United States also examines the latter and delegitimizes the former. Indeed, emigration is referred to in 19 potential co-ethnics. Specifically, they Israel as yerUla or descent and emigrants as yordim (those who go ~c and the Asian ethnic minorities in down} in contradiction to immigrants to Israel who are termed oUm or mation of these supranational ethnic those\vho go up. Shokeid suggests that the acceptance of the Zionist lOSt country through the unified ethnic ideology is also a source of feelings of alienation shared by Israelis iifferent countries in Latin America and towards .Jewish Americans. He claims that, as part oftheir denial of the Ormation of these new ethnic minorities stigma ;bsociated with the status of yordim, Israeli immigrants to the Df the newcomer immigrants themselves United '. States distingtlish themselves from Jewish Americans by Iic or Asian co-ethnics. It is yet to be refusing.to be recognized as ·Diaspora Jews.-1 . Cuban, and Puerto Rican immigrants in Shokpid (1988» also refers to religious differences as major , themselves as members of the Hispanic determinBD.ts of a division between Israeli immigrants and Jewish IllS, Filipinos and Vietnamese immigrants Americans. Specifically, he mentions the difference between the :lerson and Waters 1988; Rumbaut and religiously. oriented and synagogue based ethnicity of Jewish AmeriCans, and the secular orientation of most Israelis in the homeland (about 80 percent) including most of the Israeli immigrants to the 30 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URn

United States. Moreover, Shokeid (1988) argues that the antagonistic and King Solomon restaurants, and feelings that most of the secular Israelis have toward the Israeli respondents were approached thnl religious establishment in particular and toward the Jewish religion in members- and students in local &CI genew is related to the ongoing social and political conflict between members of the Israeli consular dele, secular and orthodox Jews in Israel. In contrast, Jews in America are contacted through snowball sample attached to Jewish religious tradition (albeit not in the orthodox way) not a random sample. However, siJ and most of the Jewish community life in the United States relies on the (higher or lower, defined below) synagogue as the center ofactivity (Handlin 1954; Herberg 1955, 1983; generation) group are linked to I Glazer and Moynihan 1963; Mittelberg and Waters 1992). networks, I was able to obtain infor Liebman and Cohen (1990) also point to clear differences between and networks not readily obtainable the conception ofJudaism as a religious culture in American and Israeli In all, 66 in-depth intervie\'l society. They argue that the religious life of American Jews is immigrants and their children: 1 characterized by personalism, voluntarism, moralism and universalism. immigrants; 19 interviews with lo\'l By contrast, the Jewish religious life in Israel is described as a quite an children of the former, and 15 with authoritative public affair, in which Jewish ritualism and particularism groups of first generation interviev are emphasized over moralism and universalism. However, Liebman average age (around forty) and dUI and Cohen (1990) concede that conceptions of Judaism among Israelis (around 11 years). All of the second and American Jews, respectively, are still more similar than different. individuals, between the age of eigb Specifically, they mention the stress on a common past, the observance yet established their own families. ~ of the same holidays, rituals, and ceremonies, the retelling of the same college graduate. myths, and similar responses to common symbols. Accordingly, they The in-depth interviews were se conclude there is but one Judaism in the contemporary world, not one 1988). Interviewees were asked to for Israelis and one for Americans. Thus, Shokeid may have overstated includingretrospectiveaccounts cone> the differences between the Israeli and American Judaism in order to and ethnic attachments, the latter explain the estrangement that he found between Israeli immigrants and association and identification with Co American Jews. and Juliani 1976). Interviewees were asked about tht METHODS gave to each of their potential eo American, Sephardi, and Ashkeoa: Data for the present stud were obtained through in-depth interviews aspects of ethnic solidarity such as tb and participant observation. Field notes were taken over a period of with other Israeli immigrants, Je\'lI three~years (1990-1993). Data were collected in various sites in AmeribJ,ns. In addition, questions Chicagb, such as classes in a Sunday school for children of Israeli attitud~towards the Jewish religion immigrants, meetingsofan Israeli scouts youth movement, and holiday in religious institutions as well as al events organized by public institutions or private individuals. Israeli or Jewish institutions such The.·interviewees were approached through snowball sample political,oPlovements and other volUD techniq~, in which I used my contacts with various informants and All df:the in-depth interviews \Y with those already interviewed to contact new respondents. Initial face-to-face setting and lasted betw contacts with many of the respondents were established in various cases, respondents were interviewed settings where Israeli immigrants and their children were present such conducted in both Hebrew and E as the Tzabar sunday school, the Tzophim youth movement, Hashalom transcribed. ·ORARY JEWRY URIELY 31 eid (1988) argues that the antagonistic and King Solomon restaurants, and other Israeli owned shops. Other war Israelis have toward the Israeli respondents were approached through contacts with Israeli faculty :ular and toward the Jewish religion in members and students in local academic institutions and with some a£ social and political conflict between members of the Israeli consular delegation. Since the interviewees were ..... In contrast, Jews in America are contacted through snowball sample techniques, the study population is ldition (albeit not in the orthodox way) not a random sample. However, since the respondents of each status lity life in the United States relies on the (higher or lower, defined below) and generational (first or second ity(HandlinI954; Herberg 1955, 1983; generation) group are linked to each other by kin or friendship liuelberg and Waters 1992). networks, I was able to obtain information about intra-ethnic divisions t also point to clear differences between and networks not readily obtainable in a random sample. religious culture in American and Israeli In all, 66 in-depth interviews were conducted with Israeli , religious life of American Jews is immigrants and their children: 17 interviews with higher status ..oluntarlsm, moralism and universalism. immigrants; 19 interviews with lower status immigrants; 15 with the us life in Israel is described as a quite an children of the former, and 15 with the children of the latter. The two Wich Jewish ritualism and particularism groups of first generation interviewees are quite similar in terms of D and universalism. However, Liebman average age (around forty) and duration of stay in the United States It conceptions of Judaism among Israelis (around 11 years). All of the second generation interviewees are young =ly, are still more similar than different. individuals, between the age of eighteen and twenty six, who have not :stress on a common past, the observance yet established their own families. All but one is a college student or md ceremonies, the retelling of the same college graduate. to common symbols. Accordingly, they The in-depth interviews were semi-structured interviews (Bernard lism in the contemporary world, not one 1988). Interviewees were asked to respond to open-ended questions, ::aDS. Thus, Shokeid may have overstated includingretrospective accounts concerning their immigrantexperiences sraeli and American Judaism in order to and ethnic attachments, the latter defined in terms of patterns of he found between Israeli immigrants and association and identification with common origin (Yancey, Erickson and Juliani 1976). Interviewees were asked about the meaning and the importance they METHODS gave to each of their potential ethnic identities, Israeli, Jewish, American, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi. They were also asked about f were obtained through in-depth interviews aspects of ethnic solidarity such as their attitudes toward and social ties Field notes were taken over a period of with other Israeli immigrants, Jewish Americans, and non-Jewish tala were collected in various sites in Ameri~. In addition, questions were asked about respondent's • Sunday school for children of Israeli attitudc# towards the Jewish religion, ritual practices, and involvement neli scouts youth movement, and holiday in religious institutions as well as about participation in non-religious nstitutions or private individuals. Israeli or Jewish institutions such as schools, youth movements, approached through snowball sample political,movements and other voluntary organizations. my contacts with various informants and All of;the in-depth interviews were conducted by the author in a wed to contact new respondents. Initial face-to-face setting and lasted between one and two hours. In most respondents were established in various cases, respondents were interviewed separately. The interviews were nmts and their children were present such conducted in both Hebrew and English, were tape recorded and , the 7Zophim youth movement, Hashalom transcribed. 32 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URIE

FINDINGS occupations, such as paint contractol and owners of small businesses, sue This study focuses on the relationships between members of the or moving companies. Most membe: Israeli immigrant community and Jewish Americans in the Chicago not have a college education, ani area. Specifically, it examines the willingness and actual degree to Sephardic ethnic origin. which Israeli immigrants identify with Jewish Americans and are The social networks of the highe integrated into their community. As noted, field work was conducted of members who were part of the eJ among Israeli immigrants in Chicago across two discrete status groups, belong to middle ranked, or high, higher and lower, and two generations, immigrants and their children. society. The higher status nen The distinction between higher status and lower status Israeli professionals such as academics, ph immigrants reflects a concrete status division which exists among Israeli and musicians. In addition, most of t immigrants in Chicago. This division is manifested in the existence of are of Ashkenazic ethnic origin. distinct informal social networks of Israeli immigrants, which in turn The second generation Israeli ilDl are highly correlated with socio-economic characteristics such as level of at least one Israeli parent. All of t of education, type of occupation, and ethnic origin. arrived in the United States before The ethnic characteristics of these networks follow the distinction members of the second generation J between Ashkenazim (Jews of European or North American origin) and still adolescent or in their early twell Sephardim (Jews of African or Asian origin), which is the main ethnic distinction within the Jewish population of Israel. Despite being a First Generation Israeli Immigrant numerical majority there, Sephardim are located in lower social immigrants in Chicago relate differen positions than Ashkenazis in Israel. Their subordination is manifested Jewish Americans. Specifically, 10\1 in terms of income, political power, education, standard of living, and more likely to be identified and inte place of residence (peres 1971; Semyonov and Lewin-Epstein 1987; ethnic community than are their high Smooha and Peres 1976; Yuchtman-Yaar and Semyonov 1979). the willingness of lower status Israeli Compared to their Ashkenazic counterparts, Sephardim are less Jewish American community is a st. exposed to Western modernization. A greater proportion of them accept society. By contrast, their higher sta. Jewish religious tradition (Liebman and Cohen 1990). Specifically, of becoming Jewish American an several studies have indicated that as a group, Sephardic Jews in Israel Americans as Israelis. These differe ~re are involved in synagogue based activities and in the practice of statusJmmigrants were revealed in 51 reli~us rituals than Ashkenazic Jews, and that most of them perceive as: a¢Ceptance of a Jewish ethnic ide. Judaism as a positive and important tradition (Smooha 1978; Ben­ social ties with Jewish American. Rafael~1982; Ben-Rafael and Sharot 1991). ~. The'!status differences among Israeli immigrants in Chicago, as Accepttince of the Jewish Source of revealed by the field work for this study, are similar to that which taken in this study itnIicate that the exists in Israeli society. Therefore, the terms "lower status" and identify themselves as "Jewish" andle "higher ~tatus" Israeli immigrants, used here, refer t~ well established "Americans." However, the ethnic ic criteria ofstatus stratification in Israel. Moreover, WIth regard to level immig~tS relies mainly on a religi of education and occupational prestige, the distinction also complies secondarily on their national origin it with objective standards of status stratification in the United States. Israeli immigrants express a stronge: The social networks of the lower status Israeli immigrants consist national origin than to their Judaic e primarily of self-employed persons in blue collar and service Table I, when asked which of the tw ORARYJEWRY URIELY 33

'6)INGS occupations, such as paint contractors, auto mechanics, or electricians, and owners of small businesses, such as appliance stores, restaurants, elationships between members of the or moving companies. Most members of the lower status networks do Del Jewish Americans in the Chicago not have a college education, and most of them are Israelis of the willingness and actual degree to Sepbardic ethnic origin. lify with Jewish Americans and are The social networks of the higher status Israeli immigrants consist -. As noted, field work was conducted of members who were part of the elite in Israeli society and currently _cago across two discrete status groups, belong to middle ranked, or higher, status positions in American :rations, immigrants and their children. society. The higher status networks include highly educated igher status and lower status Israeli professionals such as academics, physicians, engineers, psychologists atus division which exists among Israeli and musicians. In addition, most of the higher status Israeli immigrants 'Vision is manifested in the existence of are of Ashkenazic ethnic origin. u of Israeli immigrants, which in tum The second generation Israeli immigrants in this study are children t-ClCOIlomic characteristics such as level of at least one Israeli parent. All of them are either American- born or 11, md ethnic origin. arrived in the United States before they were ten years old. Most f these networks follow the distinction members of the second generation Israeli immigrants in Chicago are ~uropean or North American origin) and still adolescent or in their early twenties. Asian origin), which is the main ethnic population of Israel. Despite being a First Generation Israeli Immigrants: The two status groups of Israeli pbardim are located in lower social immigrants in Chicago relate differently toward the option of becoming orael. Their subordination is manifested Jewish Americans. Specifically, lower status Israeli immigrants are )wer, education, standard of living, and more likely to be identified and integrated with the Jewish American l; Semyonov and Lewin-Epstein 1987; ethnic community than are their higher status counterparts. Moreover, uchtman-Yaar and Semyonov 1979). the willingness of lower status Israeli immigrants to become part of the cic counterparts, Sephardim are less Jewish American community is a strategy of adaptation to American ion. A greater proportion of them accept society. By contrast, their higher status counterparts reject the option ~man and Cohen 1990). Specifically, of becoming Jewish American and distinguish themselves from hat as a group, Sephardic Jews in Israel Americans as Israelis. These differences between lower and higher ~ based activities and in the practice of statusJmmigrants were revealed in such aspects of ethnic attachment :ic Jews, and that most of them perceive as: ~ptance of a Jewish ethnic identity, attachment to Judaism, and :IpOrtant tradition (Smooha 1978; Ben­ social ties with Jewish American. iharot 1991). J., IODg Israeli immigrants in Chicago, as Accepttlnce of the Jewish Source of Ethnic Identity: The interviews )I' this study, are similar to that which taken in this study iIniicate that the almost all of the interviewees ~fore, the terms "lower status" and identify themselves as "Jewish" and/or as "Israelis" rather than simply IIDts, used here, refer to well established "Ameri~." However, the ethnic identity of the lower status Israeli in Israel. Moreover, with regard to level immignUitS relies mainly on a religiously based Jewish identity and I prestige, the distinction also complies secondarily on their national origin in Israel. In contrast, higher status itus stratification in the United States. Israeli immigrants express a stronger commitment to their Israeli or Ie lower status Israeli immigrants consist national origin than to their Judaic or religious identity. As noted in persons in blue collar and service Table 1, when asked which of the two identities is the most important 34 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY

for them, 76 percent of the higher status Israeli immigrants pointed to minority. As mentioned earlier, S their Israeli identity, and none of them referred to hislher Jewish lower social, economic, and pol identity.· In contrast, only 21 percent of the lower status Israeli Israelis. However, a Sephardic etb immigrants pointed to their Israeli identity as their major identity, and and salient in Israel, became all 47 percent asserted they perceive themselves first of all as wJewish. W America as shown in the follow I am of Kurdish origin, and ir Table 1. Expressions of Identity Among First and Second Generation as trash. They acted as if Israelis in the United States Sephardic was associated with Chah [riff-raffj.2 When I C8J High Status Low Status Total behind. Nobody treated me as First Second First Second First Second Polish people who are lower I Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. and it makes me angry about, The Sephardic Israeli immign I see myself first of all as: as Sephardic. However, their Se

salient than it was in Israel. The I American 0% 20% 0% 13% 0% 17% immigrants to their Sephardic etlm Jewish 0% 13% 47% 33% 25% 23% activities such as the annual cc Israeli 76% 67% 21% 53% 47% 60% fondness for traditional Sephard Israeli & manifestation of a commitment to Jewish Equally 24% 0% 32% 1% 28% 0% Israeli immigrants' affiliation wit: N 17 15 19 IS 36 30 percent of lower status interviewe percent of the synagogue membe. Sephardic congregations in CI The priority that lower status Israeli immigrants give to their Jewish characterized by Sephardic styles. identity is illustrated in a statement offered by Dror: meals. For me, the term wIsraeli W is only a political term ... to be The process of identity format; Jewish, however, is a spiritual thing. If Israel will be in danger of the Sephardic identity is reduce I will come to defend it, but I will do it as a Jew and not as an identity is elevated, is further i Israeli. Shos1lana: bi~ contrast, A typical account concerning the meaning of being L-~m a little confused concem Jewish was offered by Chagay, a higher status interviewee: that I was discriminated again! Yds" I identify myself as a Jew, but that is more an integrated EJen at the present, when I me part! of my Israeli identity than a religious identity. For me I alii Iraqi. Since I came to Am Ju~sm is a part Of Israeli culture. Therefore, I feel different closer to the American Jews t than Jewish Americans, although we are all Jews. Israel, because they are not pn Most,ofthe lower status interviewees asserted that their commitment Ho~~ver, I also do not fee to their iewish identity was increased during their stay in America. AmeriCa. When I came to AD However, in terms of identity formation, such increase is not the only from most Americans ... I felt change that.is manifested by members of the lower status group. Since my Jewish identity became stn most Of them are of Sephardic origin, their emigration from Israel also identities. consists of a departure from a stigmatized and subordinated ethnic ·ORARY JEWRY URIELY 35

:ter status Israeli immigrants pointed to minority. As mentioned earlier, Sephardic Jews in Israel are located in ~ of them referred to hislber Jewish lower social, economic, and political positions than are Ashlcenazic percent of the lower status Israeli Israelis. However, a Sephardic ethnic identity, which was both negative eli identity as their major identity, and and salient in Israel, became almost insignificant and ·costless· in rle themselves first of all as ·Jewish.· America as shown in the following account offered by Shaul: I am of Kurdish origin, and in Israel the Polish elite treated us :y Among First and Second Generation as trash. They acted as if they are better than us. Being States Sephardic was associated with being primitive or a being Chah­ Chah [riff-raft],2 When I came to Chicago I left all of this :us Low Status Total behind. Nobody treated me as an inferior Sephardic. Here I see ond First Second First Second Polish people who are lower than me. I see a different reality, ;jeD. Gen. Gen. Gen. Gen. and it makes me angry about what I went through in Israel. The Sephardic Israeli immigrantS continue to perceive themselves as Sephardic. However, their Sephardic identity in America is less salient than it was in Israel. The commitment of the Sephardic Israeli !O~ 0% 13% 0% 17% immigrants to their Sephardic ethnicity is mainly expressed in symbolic 13~ 47% 33% 25% 23% activities such as the annual celebration of the Mimunah, and a )7~ 21% 53% 47% 60% fondness for traditional Sephardic food. 3 The only organizational manifestation of a commitment to a Sephardic identity is the Sephardic O~ 32% 1% 28% 0% Israeli immigrants' affiliation with Sephardic synagogues. Fifty-eight IS 19 15 36 30 percent of lower status interviewees are members of a synagogue; 82 percent of the synagogue members are affiliated with one of the two Sephardic congregations in Chicago. These congregations are IS Israeli immigrants give to their Jewish characterized by Sephardic styles of prayers, hymns, and traditional ment offered by Dror: meals. • is only a political term ... to be The process of identity formation just noted, in which the salience lUal thing. If Israel will be in danger of the Sephardic identity is reduced and the importance of the Jewish lt I will do it as a Jew and not as an identity is elevated, is further illustrated in a statement made by Shoshana: ount concerning the meaning of being l-b a little confused concerning my identity. In Israel, I felt '. a higher status interviewee: that I was discriminated against and patronized as a FrenK' ..• l Jew, but that is more an integrated EJe9 at the present, when I meet Israelis, sometimes I feel that f than a religious identity. For me I aQi Iraqi. Since I came to America, things have changed. I feel .i culture. Therefore, I feel different closer to the Amencan Jews than to the Israeli Ashkenazic in though we are all Jews. Israel, because they are not prejudiced against Sephardic Jews. erviewees asserted that their commitment HO~l!'ver, I also do not feel that I completely belong in IJlcreased during their stay in America. AmeriCa. When I came to America I felt that I was different formation, such increase is not the only from most Americans ... I felt Israeli. However, over the years oembers of the lower status group. Since my Jewish identity became stronger than all of my other ethnic origin, their emigration from Israel also identities. a stigmatized and subordinated ethnic 36 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URIl

Attachmem to the Jewish Religion: Higher status Israeli immigrants do everything else '" I take my bo not perceive their Jewishness as a religious identity, but as part of a usually feel much better. secular Israeli national identity. Their secular orientation towards In terms of affiliation with religi Judaism is also indicated by their choice to send their children to immigrants are much more acth secular American schools. Most of the higher status interviewees said immigrants. As shown in Table 2, they did not send their children to Jewish schools because of the strong synagogue memberships in the religious orientation of these schools. Moreover, expressions of significant, lower status immigrant alienation from the Jewish religion were made by some higher status significant extent, to attend High interviewees who referred to the cultural and political conflict between kosher kitchen at home. Howeve secular and religious Jews in Israel. For example, Shula commented: engage in traditional religious ritua I do not have a problem with Judaism as a tradition ... I even like it ... but I hate the political aspects of it, or in other words Table 2. Religious Practices of Fin I do not like the Rabbinical establishment. The secularism of the higher status Israeli immigrants is apparently High Stat transmitted from the homeland and is one of the major factors that Synagogue membership distinguishes them as Israelis and inhibits their identification with Yes 35% American Jews. No 65% Unlike their higher status counterparts, lower status Israeli N 17 immigrants express only positive views about the Jewish religion. Their religious attachment is manifested both in the way they perceive the x:= 1.04 d/= 1 NS Jewish religion and in their actual involvement in Jewish religious institutions and ritual practice. Moeover, while the religious attachment Synagogue Attendance During the I of lower status Israeli immigrants may be contrasted with the Yes 29% secularism of the higher status immigrants, it is somewhat similar to the No 71% Jewish American attachment to Judaism. Therefore, their religious N 17 attachment could be seen as another determinant of their willingness to x:= 8.18 df= 1 P< .005 be integrated in the Jewish American community and of their adaptation to the wider society. Mpst lower status Israeli immigrants interviewed do not define Yes 0% the~lves as ·Orthodox Jews.· Instead, they refer to themselves as Nd 100% ·traditional Jews, • to indicate they are more religious than secular Jews N 17 but leis/religious than Orthodox Jews. j In contrast to the ambivalent X:~/9.90 d/=1 p< 1005 attitudes toward the Jewish religion expressed by their higher status 'I counterparts, lower status interviewees viewed Judaism positively. They perceived Judaism as part their family life, as a source of general of them eat pork outside home even guidanClf' in life, and as a source of relief from everyday life at home.,· difficultieS. For example, Zion, one of the lower status interviewees, In sulli;'" compared to their highc: observed: , Israeli immigrants are more likely til For me,· the Jewish religion is kind of a therapy to the soul. religious practices. Moreover, the: When I go to the synagogue, I forget my business and coID1I1On among Jewish America: generations of Jewish Americans i: JRARYJEWRY URIELY 37

'I: Higher status Israeli immigrants do everything else ... I take my boys with me and when I return I • religious identity, but as part of a usually feel much better• .. Their secular orientation towards In terms of affiliation with religious institutions, lower status Israeli leir choice to send their children to immigrants are much more active than the higher status Israeli of the higher status interviewees said immigrants. As shown in Table 2, while the difference in the rate of D Jewish schools because of the strong synagogue memberships in the two groups is not statistically schools. Moreover, expressions of significant, lower status immigrants are more likely, to a statistically ion were made by some higher status significant extent, to attend High Holidays services and to keep a cultural and political conflict between kosher kitchen at home. However, most lower status immigrants "leI. For example, Shula commented: engage in traditional religious rituals selectively. For example, many :It Judaism as a tradition ... I even ical aspects of it, or in other words Table 2. Religious Practices of First Generation establishment. ;tatus Israeli immigrants is apparently High Status Low status Total and is one of the major factors that Synagogue membership and inhibits their identification with Yes 35% 58% 47% No 65% 42% 53% 5 counterparts, lower status Israeli N 17 19 36 e views about the Jewish religion. Their ted both in the way they perceive the ,c-= 1.04 df= 1 NS ctual involvement in Jewish religious .{oeover, while the religious attachment Synagogue Attendance During the High Holidays grants may be contrasted with the Yes 29% 79% 55% mmigrants, it is somewhat similar to the No 71% 21% 45% :0 Judaism. Therefore, their religious N 17 19 36 .ther determinant of their willingness to ,c-= 8.18 df= 1 P< .005 rican community and oftheir adaptation Keeping a Kosher kitchen at home immigrants interviewed do not define Yes 0% 53% 28% •• Instead, they refer to themselves as Nd 100% 47% 72% Iley are more religious than secular Jews N 17 19 36 ;)X Jews. 5 In contrast to the ambivalent ,c-~( 9.90 df= 1 p< /005 :ligion expressed by their higher status ..iewees viewed Judaism positively. They ~r family life, as a source of general of them eat pork outside home even though they keep a kosher kitchen source of relief from everyday life at home./-, sulli~ :1, one of the lower status interviewees, In compared to their higher status counterparts, lower status Israeli immigrants are more likely to be involved in traditional Jewish :>n is kind of • therapy to the soul. religious practices. Moreover, their involvement is similar to that Bogue, I forget my business and common among Jewish Americans. Studies of third and later generations of Jewish Americans indicate that American Judaism is 38 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URI characterized by a non-traditional form of Jewish religiosity (Cohen companies. By contrast, most of the 1983; Herberg 1955, 1983; Waxman 1983; Liebman and Cohen 1990). self-employed; their economic acti.. In this modified form, Orthodoxy bas declined, most traditional economic enclave. religious rituals are omitted, and synagogue based activities are often Many of the Israeli owned bw more socially oriented than concerned with ritual or liturgy. Cohen W quasi-Jewish neighborhoods such &I (1983), for example, points to the erosion of certain Wtraditional ritual the self-employed interviewees st practices and the stabilization of more wmodem Wobservances among services to Jewish American COl the later generations of American Jews. involved in Jewish owned businesse The similarities between the religious involvements of Jewish once during their occupations care Americans and lower status Israeli immigrants may facilitate the latter's attach positive values to their ecc assimilation into the Jewish American community. Moreover, since Americans. They tend to evalu: American Judaism is perceived as a form of religious attachment that businessmen, and to perceive the facilitates both Jewish solidarity and Americanization, the form of resource for business. For example, religious involvement adopted by lower status Israeli immigrants may his wife, Iris, comment: well allow their integration in American society as well. Itzchak: The Jews here are really As noted, lower status Israeli immigrants are more attached to the of Jewish friends, but I do busin Jewish religion than are the higher status Israeli immigrants. However, Iris (his wife): '" Yes, they are it is likely that these differences between members of the two status get more than they pay for it' groups were transmitted from their nation of origin, Israel, and did not Itzchak: What do you want tI emerge in the United States, their host country. Significantly, studies same when it comes to business. of ethnicity in Israel indicate that Sepbardic Jews are more attached to demand a lot and that is why we Judaism than are Ashkenazic Jews (Smooha 1978; Ben-Rafael 1982; The difference between higher Ben-Rafael and Sharot 1991). The tendency of lower status Israeli immigrants with respect to their intei immigrants to identify themselves as Wtraditional Jews, W their illustrated in terms of familial and f involvement in synagogue based activities, and their positive outlook higher status counterparts, lower sfa towards the Jewish religion as part of their family life are also social ties with Jewish Americans. It. characteristic of Sephardic Jews in Israel. ties more positively than higher statt: Marriages between an Israeli immi Social TIes With Jewish Americans: Higher status and the lower status of coprse, the closest ties between Israell immigrants differ with respect to their social integration with IJW'I:iiges among higher status respo American Jews. While higher status immigrants are reluctant to about a third (32 percent) of lowel: integ"l7 with American Jews, lower status immig~ts tend to establis.h marriEtd/to a Jewish American. Obvi. familial and economic ties them. However, neither status group IS involv~ in these such marriages I segregated into their oVm. ethnic neighborhoods and each is moderately Americans than other Israeli immil! integrated residentially with American Jews. Nevertheless, ~ere are mainly through their spouses' extend clear differences between the status groups in terms ofoccupational and the relat~nshipsbetween members of social ~gration with Jewish Americans. AmericabS are also established outsic Higher status Israeli immigrants are much less oriented towards the In particular, lower status Israeli local Jewish economic enclave than their lower status counterparts. As American Jews in synagogues. As suI! profeSsionals, most higher sta~s i~grants ~ hired by sU~h local immigrants are more involved in. American institutions as UDIversltles, hospitals. and high-tech community life than are members 01 ::>RARYJEWRY URIELY 39

.at form of Jewish religiosity (Cohen companies. By contrast, most of the lower status Israeli immigrants are man 1983; Liebman and Cohen 1990). self-employed; their economic activity is clearly oriented to the Jewish doxy bas declined, most traditional economic enclave. :l synagogue based activities are often Many of the Israeli owned businesses in Chicago are located in ac:emed with ritual or liturgy. Cohen quasi-Jewish neighborhoods such as Rogers Park and Skokie. Most of ,e erosion of certain "traditional" ritual the self-employed interviewees stated that they sell products and If more "modem" observances among services to Jewish American consumers. Most stated they were an Jews. involved in Jewish owned businesses as laborers or as partners at least 1e religious involvements of Jewish once during their occupations careers in America. In general, they ,Ii immigrants may facilitate the latter's attach positive values to their economic relationships with Jewish merican community. Moreover, since Americans. They tend to evaluate Jewish Americans as good IS a form of religious attachment that businessmen, and to perceive the Jewish enclave as an important ty aDd Americanization, the form of resource for business. For example, Itzchak, an auto-parts retailer, and )y lower status Israeli immigrants may his wife, Iris, comment: \merican society as well. Itzchak: The Jews here are really nice people. I do not have a lot Ii immigrants are more attached to the of Jewish friends, but I do business with them ... her status Israeli immigrants. However, Iris (his wife): ... Yes, they are nice, but they always want to es between members of the two status get more than they pay for it's not easy to work with them. :leir nation of origin, Israel, and did not Itzchak: What do you want the Jews and the Israelis are the .eir host country. Significantly, studies same when it comes to business. We, Jews and Israelis, always I&t Sephardic Jews are more attached to demand a lot and that is why we do well in business. rews (Smooha 1978; Ben-Rafael 1982; The difference between higher status and lower status Israeli The tendency of lower status Israeli immigrants with respect to their integration with American Jews is also lse1ves as "traditional Jews," their illustrated in terms of familial and friendship ties. Compared to their =d activities, and their positive outlook higher status counterparts, lower status Israeli immigrants have more .as part of their family life are also social ties with Jewish Americans. Moreover, they tend to view these rs in Israel. ties more positively than higher status immigrants. Marriages between an Israeli immigrant and an American represent, ~: Higher status and the lower status of coprse, the closest ties between them. There are only two such respect to their social integration with man:iitges among higher status respondents in this study. However, er status immigrants are reluctant to about a third (32 percent) of lower status respondents are or were lower status immigrants tend to establish marriJd,to a Jewish American. Obviously, Israeli immigrants who are aem. However, neither status group is involv~ in these such marriages establish more ties with Jewish ic neighborhoods and each is moderately Americans than other Israeli immigrants. Such ties are established \merican Jews. Nevertheless, there are mainly through their spouses' extended family and friends. However, :talus groups in terms of occupational and the relatl9nships between members of the lower status group and Jewish Americans. AmeriC8bs are also established outside of family ties. :rants are much less oriented towards the In particular, lower status Israeli immigrants have contacts with , than their lower status counterparts. As American Jews in synagogues. As suggested above, lower status Israeli ltus immigrants are hired by such local immigrants are more involved in the synagogue based Jewish JDiversities, hospitals, and high-tech community life than are members of the higher status group. Israeli 40 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URl members in the "Sephardic Congregation" and the "Shaarey Mizrach" Excuse me for the language, bu congregation in Chicago told me that they were welcomed by the f...ing Jewish values. Jewish American members of the congregation as illustrated in This story inspired other speake Shoshana's words: toward the American Jewish c The Jews that we know here are very warm to us, and we feel exemplifies the cultural differe that we are part of the community. I remember that when we conception of the Jewish culture I came to the synagogue for the first time, they let my husband do and moralistic version common tc the Kiddush [blessing] as a sign of respect. This gesture meant Cohen 1990). It should also bl a lot to us, and it represents their openness to Israelis who attend immigrants believe Jewish Ameria the synagogue. blame the latter for the estrangen Unlike lower status interviewees, most of the higher status example, I was told by Rioa: interviewees stressed the social estrangement between them and Jewish Many of them [Jewish AmeriCi Americans. Most of them proclaim that the absence of social ties Israelis who live in Israel, but I between Israelis and Jewish Americans is due to cultural differences treat us as if we deserted their sl between the groups, A typical statement is that offered by Lilach, a for them to live here but not fOI higher status immigrant: Although we are Jews, we do not have much in common. There Second Gereration Israeli Immi, is a huge gap between our mentality and theirs. When Israelis higher status and lower status 1sT. interact with Jewish Americans, there is no chemistry. What can dramatically lessened among mel I tell you ... "us" and "them." It never works. Specifically, children of Israeli iDllI On several occasions I witnessed Israeli immigrants of the higher to identify as Israeli American rad: status group express antagonistic attitudes toward the Jewish American diminution of such differences is lilt community. One of these occasions was a meeting of an Israeli consul socio-economic profile of second ge with parents of the Tzabar Sunday school. One of the parents requested Unlike their parents, the children c the consul to distinguish between the local Israeli community and the same demographic and socioeconoD Jewish American community in his address. The parent supported his standards of stratification, virtually argument that Jewish Americans are an unreliable out-group with the The majority of the second ge­ following remarks: negative view of Jewish Americans I apt going to tell you a story that when I heard it my hair stood Amerjcans, mainly of their own ag oaend. One of the Jewish American teachers in Shechter (Jewish and..bver-protected by their parenl Day School) was collecting donations at school for the civilians generation interviewee noted: that $Uffer from the war at the Persian Gulf. That teacher Th~re is something that I don't I: emp,'hasized that the donation should also help the Iraqi civilians so .). "JAP" [Jewish American F that suffer from the war, and that it is a Jewish value to show that is very importint for them. ~ mercy even to one's enemy. When one of the school's Israeli about themselves most of the tin teach~ suggested to that teacher that she may have gone too far, The ~tion of being identified II the JeWish teacher told her "This is America ... not Israel, and undesirable for Shiri and other secoD you'd better get used to it." This is just one example that shows a similar view of Jewish Americar: us that ·we Israelis cannot count on the American Jewish interviewees emphasized how th community when it comes to the political interests of Israel. Americans. For example, I was II interviewee, Revi: ORARYJEWRY URIELY 41

pgation- and the -Sbaarey Mizrach­ Excuse me for the language, but we cannot trust them with their . :ne that they were welcomed by the f...ing Jewish values. : the congregation as illustrated in This story inspired other speakers who expressed a similar attitude toward the American lewish community. Moreover, the story • are very warm to us, and we feel exemplifies the cultural differences between the particularistic munity. I remember that when we conception of the lewish culture among Israeli and the universalistic .e first time, they let my husband do and moralistic version common to lewish Americans (Liebman and sign of respect. This gesture meant Cohen 1990). It should also be noted that many higher status :heir openness to Israelis who attend immigrants believe lewish Americans dislike them. Thus, they tend to blame the latter for the estrangement between the two groups. For iewees, most of the higher status example, I was told by Rina: -estrangement between them and Jewish Many of them [Jewish Americans] are hostile to us. They like .claim that the absence of social ties Israelis who live in Israel, but not Israelis who live here. They mericans is due to cultural differences treat us as if we deserted their shelter. They think that it is O.K. statement is that offered by Lilach, a for them to live here but not for us.

10 not have much in common. There Second Gereration Israeli Immigrants: The differences between mentality and theirs. When Israelis higher status and lower status Israeli immigrants noted above have lUIS, there is no chemistry. What can dramatically lessened among members of the second generation. n. - It never works. Specifically, children of Israeli immigrants of both status groups prefer lessed Israeli immigrants of the higher to identify as Israeli American rather than as lewish Americans. The ic attitudes toward the Jewish American diminution of such differences is likely related to the demographic and nons was a meeting of an Israeli consul socio-economic profile of second generation respondents in this study. :lay school. One of the parents requested Unlike their parents, the children of Israeli immigrants belong to the =en the local Israeli community and the same demographic and socioeconomic category. In terms of American n his address. The parent supported his standards of stratification, virtually all middle class -college kids. ­ as are an unreliable out-group with the The majority of the second generation interviewees expressed a negative view of lewish Americans. Many of them stated that Jewish ry that when I heard it my hair stood Amerjcans, mainly of their own age, are materialistic, self-centered, .merican teachers in Shechter (Jewish and..bver-protected by their parents. For example, Shiri, a second -donations at school for the civilians generation interviewee noted: at the Persian Gulf. That teacher Th~~ is something that I don't like in American lews. They are :m should also help the Iraqi civilians so .'j. -lAP- [lewish American Princess]. They have money and md that it is a Jewish value to show that is very important for them. They are spoiled kids who think y. When one of the school's Israeli about themselves most of the time. =&Cher that she may have gone too far, The pption of being identified as lewish American was obviously -This is America ... not Israel, and undesirable for Shiri and other second generation interviewees who held • This is just one example that shows a similar view of lewish Americans. Most of the second generation ot count on the American Jewish interviewees emphasized how they were different from Jewish ; to the political interests of Israel. Americans. For example, I was told by another second generation interviewee, Revi: 42 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URI]

American Jews are loaded with attitudes, and it's yakhi perception as Israelis does not reI: [unpleasant] to be around them. They are loaded with money, (mainly) on their family's national! and all of them live under the assumption that they are going to When I asked second generation iJ be doctors, lawyers or something like that. In short, they are identify themselves as Israelis, d ·JAPs·••• I like to think that I am different from them. I am not ·because I was born there·; or "be a JAP, and I hope that I will never become one. other words, most of them base til With regard to their Jewish and Israeli sources of ethnic identity, background of the family. Most 01 most of the second generation interviewees perceived their nationally possible to be an Israeli in the Diasp based Israeli identity as more salient than their religiously oriented meaning given by second generatiol Jewish identity. Specifically, 67 percent of the children of higher status identity is mainly influenced by An Israeli immigrants and S3 percent of those from the lower status Israeli and not by the standards of the col: immigrants presented themselves first of all as Israelis. By contrast, former perspective, being an Israeli only 13 percent of the former and 33 percent of the latter presented than being an Irish American, or u themselves first of all as Americans (see Table 1). The findings also suggest that second generation Israeli immigrants CONCLl regard a commitment to the Jewish religion as the primary component of in the conventional (Jewish) identity of Jewish Americans. Their This study indicates that the I marginal attachment to a religiously oriented Jewish source of identity immigrants to American society tal is, I believe, part of their attempt to distinguish themselves from Jewish integration with the Jewish AmeriCll Americans as indicated in the following account by Shahar: they differ from their higher status Unlike Israelis, Jewish Americans are boring, colorless and second generation offspring ofboth s superficial. I am different from them. They are Americans with of identifying and integrating with 1 a Jewish religion. I do respect the Jewish religion. and being These findings bear on the nat Jewish is part of me. However, I am an Israeli first of all. newcomer immigrants and their potel A similar view of Jewish identity was expressed by Revi: As mentioned earlier, Mittelberg I see myself as an Israeli American. Both identities are based on newcomer immigrants can be integn my national origin. The Jewish identity is a different thing. In identification with their ·proximal : America, it's mainly a religious identity. I have hard time feeling which the newcomers are assigned iJ Jewish in an American sense. I don't identify with the American also ~ggest that newcomer immignu culture of the Jewish religion, and I feel that I am different from potential co-ethnics in the host COunl American Jews. the host society through the ·proxiJDI Thils, the general picture suggests that second generation be acctpted or rejected by newcom. intervi¢~ees prefer an identity, based on their national origins, as importa,nt to identify the factors tho Israelis, rather than areligiously oriented, Jewish, identity. It should adaptation to the host "SOciety. be stressed, however, that the Israeli identity is not perceived similarly The findings of this study sugge. by the fi.-st and the second generation Israeli immigrants. Most of the immigrants with the ·proximal hos. parents (first generation) do not challenge the notion common in Israel attributeS" originating in the homelanc that their residence outside of Israel contradicts their attempt to remain the ethno-religious Jewish orientatior: full members of Israeli society. By contrast, their children (second and the secularized and nationally generation Americans) do not recognize the tension between their higher'status counterparts may stem f residence in the United States and their Israeli identity. Their self- rather than from any developed by tb ::>RARY JEWRY URIELY 43

with attitudes, and it's yakhi perception as Israelis does not rely on their place of residence, but :m. They are loaded with money, (mainly) on their family's national background or their place of birth. , assumption that they are going to When I asked second generation interviewees on what grounds they :thing like that. In short, they are identify themselves as Israelis, the most common answers were: J am different from them. I am not -because I was born there-; or -because I have an Israeli family. - In never become one. other words, most of them base their Israeli identity on the national and Israeli sources of ethnic identity, background of the family. Most of them hold the position that it is nterviewees perceived their nationally possible to be an Israeli in the Diaspora. Accordingly, it seems that the -salient than their religiously oriented meaning given by second generation Israeli Americans to their Israeli percent of the children of higher status identity is mainly influenced by American standards of ethnic identity 1t of those from the lower status Israeli and not by the standards of the collective identity in Israel. From the :=a first of all as Israelis. By contrast, former perspective, being an Israeli American is no more paradoxical -and 33 percent of the latter presented than being an Irish American, or an ltalian American. cans (see Table 1). ill second generation Israeli immigrants CONCLUSIONS riish religion as the primary component ) identity of Jewish Americans. Their This study indicates that the adaptation of lower status Israeli ,usly oriented Jewish source of identity immigrants to American society takes the form of identification and ,t to distinguish themselves from Jewish integration with the Jewish American ethnic community. In this regard, 'ollowing account by Shahar: they differ from their higher status counterparts, as well as from the oericans are boring, colorless and second generation offspring ofboth status groups, who reject the option ~m them. They are Americans with of identifying and integrating with Jewish Americans. peet the Jewish religion, and being These findings bear on the nature of the relationships between "Ver, I am an Israeli first of all. newcomer immigrants and their potential co-ethnics in the host country. lty was expressed by Revi: As mentioned earlier, Mittelberg and Waters (1992) suggest that nerican. Both identities are based on newcomer immigrants can be integrated into the host country through .vish identity is a different thing. In identification with their -proximal host- group, the ethnic group to .ous identity. I have hard time feeling which the newcomers are assigned in the host country. However, they e. I don't identify with the American also suggest that newcomer immigrants might reject identification with m, and I feel that I am different from poteot1a1 co-ethnics in the host country. In other words, integration in the host society through the -proximal host- group is an option that can are suggests that second generation be accbpted or rejected by newcomer immigrants. Accordingly, it is ly, based on their national origins, as impo~t to identify the factors that influence the actual pattern of Diy oriented, Jewish, identity. It should adaptation to the host -society. Israeli identity is not perceived similarly The findings of this study suggest that identification of newcomer Deration Israeli immigrants. Most of the immigrants with the -proximal host- group may be due to cultural :)l challenge the notion common in Israel attribute$ originating in the homeland. That is, the differences between lsrael contradicts their attempt to remain the ethno-religious Jewish orientation of lower status Israeli immigrants :ty. By contrast, their children (second and the secularized and nationally based Jewish orientation of their :>t recognize the tension between their higher'status counterparts may stem from values transmitted from Israel :s and their Israeli identity. Their self- rather than from any developed by the immigrants in the United States. 44 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URll

Specifically, they reflect cultural differences between Sephardic and enclave, but, rather, on their prot Ashkenazic Jews in Israel. The religious differences between secular employed in institutions, such as un Israeli immigrants of Ashkenazic origin and Jewish Americans are firms, which are not ethnically orie major determinants for the estrangement between them. However, the that, among immigrants, entrep religious background of Sephardic Israelis is a benefit, rather than a professionals to rely on their ·prox barrier, to their integration with Jewish Americans. likely than the latter to identify \l At the same time, this study suggests that structural circumstances, potential co-ethnics. such as patterns of economic and social adaptation to the host country, The findings also point to two and processes of social mobility, are major determinants of integration among lower status Israeli immign with the ·proximal host· group. Specifically, newcomer immigrants are elevated in the host country; and ~ more likely to identify and integrate with their ·proximal host· group which was both negative and sa when such assimilation facilitates their adaptation in the host country, insignificant and inconsequential in and/or when they perceive it as a means to advance their social status. change from being a ·Sephardic In sum, the integration of the lower status immigrants with Jewish American· means upward mobility f Americans is part of a respective strategy of social and economic contrary, higher status immigrants adaptation to the host country. In particular, they appear to consider society. Their emigration was not their identification with Jewish Americans as an improvement regarding social status. their social status. On the other hand, the absence of a need to improve In short, this study suggests thai their social status among higher status immigrants and among second host· group is determined by both generation Israeli immigrants explains their reluctance to be assimilated background in the sending society . to the Jewish American community. would acquire in the host society b: In terms of family ties, this study indicates that about one-third of host· group. Specifically, when ne\; lower status interviewees compared to but one of the higher status, identification with the ·proximal married a Jewish American after arrival in the host country. These improvement in their social status, d immigrants received American citizenship or the status of Permanent identification. Obviously, the likelihc Resident in the United States through their marriage to an American the ·proximal-host· group is also I citizen. This is not to say that those who married an American did so latter in the host country. At the for instrumental reasons. Rather, marriage to an American citizen eased immigrants arrive as the elite of th. the Pt:ocess of admission as a Permanent Resident and of naturalization with ~e ·proximal host· is less likel~ as Atnerican citizens. In contrast, higher status immigrants acquired theid~ounterparts of lower socio-eec their legal immigration status on the basis of their occupational skills The above conclusions regarding and tHrQugh the organizations that employed them. with lh~ ·proximal host· group are 8 ~rms In of economic adaptation, the study indicates that lower the ~nd generation Israeli imm. status Israeli immigratits are strongly oriented to the Jewish economic identify as Jewish Atft'ericans. They enclave. Most were involved in Jewish owned businesses as laborers or differences in ethnic attachment betw partners/at least at one point in their occupational careers in the United status i~grants are not transmitted States. Moreover, many who are presently self-employed rely on distinctiOn between the two groups • Jewish clientele. This finding is consistent with the report that Israeli relates, at least in part, to the stratifi entrepreneurs in Los Angeles are involved in and oriented to the Jewish be applied to their children. By Arne: econoinic enclave (Gold 1992, 1994). By contrast, the occupational Israeli Americans, regardless of tho adaptation of higher status Israeli immigrants does not rely on an ethnic same social class: they are middle cb PORARY JEWRY URIELY 4S nl differences between Sephardic and enclave, but, rather, on their professional skills. Most of them are ~ religious differences between secular employed in institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and high-teCh mc origin and Jewish Americans are firms, which are not ethnically oriented. These findings suggest then :angement between them. However, the that, among immigrants, entrepreneurs are more likely than :relic Israelis is a benefit, rather than a professionals to rely on their "proximal host" group and, thus, more II Jewish Americans. likely than the latter to identify with and be integrated with their i suggests that structural circumstances, potential co-ethnics. nd social adaptation to the host country, The findings also point to two positive changes in social status 'Y, are major determinants of integration among lower status Israeli immigrants: 1) their Jewish identity Was • Specifically, newcomer immigrants are elevated in the host country; and 2) their Sephardic ethnic identity, Bgrate with their "proximal host" group which was both negative and salient in Israel, becomes almost .tes their adaptation in the host country, insignificant and inconsequential in the United States. Therefore, the 5 a means to advance their social status. change from being a "Sephardic Israeli" to becoming a "Jewish he lower status immigrants with Jewish American" means upward mobility for lower status immigrants. On the lCtive strategy of social and economic contrary, higher status immigrants were part of the elite in Israeli . In particular, they appear to consider society. Their emigration was not followed by any enhancement of Americans as an improvement regarding social status. r hand, the absence of a need to improve In short, this study suggests that identification with the "proximal er status immigrants and among second host" group is determined by both the immigrants' socio-economic .xplains their reluctance to be assimilated background in the sending society and by the social status that they unity. would acquire in the host society by identifying with their "proximal s study indicates that about one-third of host" group. Specifically, when newcomer immigrants perceive their lp&l'ed to but one of the higher status, identification with the "proximal host" group as entailing an Ifter arrival in the host country. These improvement in their social status, they will be inclined to accept such 1 citizenship or the status of Permanent identification. Obviously, the likelihood ofimmigrants' identifying with through their marriage to an American the "proximal-host" group is also related to the social status of the those who married an American did so latter in the host country. At the same time, since professional ~, marriage to an American citizen eased immigrants arrive as the elite of the sending countries, identification ?ermanent Resident and of naturalization with ~e "proximal host" is less likely to be appealing for them than for trast, higher status immigrants acquired thei!:'tounterparts of lower socio-economic background. on the basis of their occupational skills The above conclusions regarding the determinants of identification that employed them. with th~ "proximal host" group are also supported by the reluctance of Iptation, the study indicates that lower the seoOnd generation Israeli immigrants of both status groups to wngly oriented to the Jewish economic identify as Jewish .Adlericans. They may also be used to explain why n Jewish owned businesses as laborers or differences in ethnic attachment between the lower status and the higher 11 their occupational careers in the United status iqunigrants are not transmitted to the next generation. The status o are presently self-employed rely on distinction between the two groups of the first generation immigrants is consistent with the report that Israeli relates, at least in part, to the stratification system in Israel and cannot are involved in and oriented to the Jewish be applied to their children. By American standards, second generation 2, 1994). By contrast, the occupational Israeli Americans, regardless of their parents' status, belong to the aeli immigrants does not rely on an ethnic same social class: they are middle class college students. As such, they 46 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URIE are well integrated into the mainstream ofAmerican society. Moreover, and "secular" Jews. The tenn "traditiooal Jn they take for granted their integration in American society. Therefore, that of the observant (orthodox) Jewl aDd no they do not need to identify with Jewish Americans in order to be integrated in American society. REFER! Finally, the findings of the present study bear on the issue of newcomer immigrants' identification with their potential co-ethnics in Ben Rafael, Eliezer. 1982. Emergel the receiving country. Interestingly, the findings support Waters' and Social Conflid in Israel. WI position (1990, 1991), that the socio-economic background of the Ben Rafael, Eliezer and Steven Slu newcomers and the social status of the wproximal-hostW group in the CltJss in Israeli Society. Cambri( receiving country are important influences on the identification with co· Bernard, H. Russell. 1990. It. ethnics. However, the present study indicates that the identification of Anthropology. London: Sage Pul immigrants with their wproximal hostWis also influenced by cultural and Cohen, Steven M. 1983. American k structural factors in both the sending and the host society. This study York and London: Tavistock Pul also supports the argument that the identification of newcomer Elizur, Dov. 1980. wIsraelis in the' immigrants with co-ethnics is related to their perception of the relative and Intentions. WAmerican JewiJ social rankings of the ethnic groups themselves (Waters 1990, 1991). Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Moynibl More specifically, however, the present study suggests that newcomers Cambridge, Massachusetts. The : are more likely to identify and integrate with their wproximal hostW Gold, Steven.1992. wIsraelis in I when doing so facilitates their adaptation in the host country, andlor Research Note. The Susan and ] when they perceive it as advancing their social status. Policy Studies, Los Angeles. __. 1994. WPatterns of Econa NOTES Immigrants in Los Angeles. W1", 111-135. I Various studies (Kass and Upset 1982, 1984; Korazim 1983, 1985; Uriely 1994) Handlin, Oscar. 1954. Adventure in. IUggest that rejection and resentment of emigration from Israel, both in Israel and in the MacGra' Jewish diaspora, is a significant detenninant of many central aspects of the immigrant Jewish Life in America. experience of Israelis in the United States. Specifically. the denial of the yordim stigma Herberg, Will. (1955), 1983. Proi is found to be related to the refusal of Israeli immigrants to accept their stay in the host University of Chicago Press. country as a permanent one. Kass, Drora, and Seymour Martin L to the United States from 1967 tc % The ~rogatory tenn, ·chah-chah," is associated with delinquency, low education, and Pp~ chea(behavior. It is usually used to refer to young males of Sephardic descent. 272-294 in Understanding AI Sklare. New Brunswick, N]: Tra , Mi~ is the traditional Jewish Moroccan celebrationofbread at the end of Passover ___.; 1984. wIsraelis in Exile_ during w~ich relatives and friends visit each other and taste homemade sweets. Recently, (He~rew). it has been recognized in Jarael as a symbol of attachment to a Sephardic identity. Kimbi," Shaul. 1990..... wPerceived However, the Mimunah party I attended in Chicago bore little resemblance to those celebrated in Israel. Values, Well-Being, and Intentiol /-' who I,mmigrated from Israel tt • A derogatOry tenn for Sephardic Jews in Israel, comparable to "nigger" for African Pacif4:;;Graduate School of Psyc}: Americans in the United States. Korazim, Joseph. 1983. wIsraeli Utilizati()n of Social Service: , Non-prthodox movements, such as Refonn or Conservative Judaism, are very small w in Israel. The main religious differentiation made is thaI among "orthodox," "traditional," Implications . Ph.D. dissertation. University, New York, NY. :>RARY JEWRY URIELY 47 tream of American society. Moreover, and "aecular" Jewi. The tenn "traditional Jew" refen to a compromise pOlition between that of the observant (orthodox) Jewl and non-observant (secular) Jewi. -ation in American society. Therefore, ith Jewish Americans in order to be REFERENCES present study bear on the issue of Ben Rafael, Eliezer. 1982. Emergence of Ethnicity: Cultural Groups lIlion with their potential co-ethnics in and Social Conflict in Israel. Westport, cr.: Greenwood Press. :ingly, the findings support Waters' Ben Rafael, Eliezer and Steven Sharot. 1991. Ethnicity Religion and e socio-economic background of the Class in Israeli Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. :s of the "proximal-host" group in the Bernard, H. Russell. 1990. Research Methods in Cultural influences on the identification with co­ Anthropology. London: Sage Publications. tudy indicates that the identification of Cohen, Steven M. 1983. American Modernity andJewish Identity. New host" is also influenced by cultural and York and London: Tavistock Publications. ming and the host society. This study Elizur, Dov. 1980. "Israelis in the United States: Motives, Attitudes, that the identification of newcomer and Intentions." American Jewish Yearbook 81: 53-67. ~lated to their perception of the relative Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot. oups themselves (Waters 1990, 1991). Cambridge, Massachusetts. The M.LT. Press. : present study suggests that newcomers Gold, Steven. 1992. "Israelis in Los Angeles." Wilstein Institute :t integrate with their "proximal host" adaptation in the host country, and/or Research Note. The Susan and David Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies, Los Angeles. ::ing their social status. __. 1994. "Patterns of Economic Cooperation Among Israeli Immigrants in Los Angeles." International Migration Review 28: NOTES 111-135. _982, 1984; Korazim 1983, 1985; Uriely 1994) Handlin, Oscar. 1954. Adventure in Freedom; Three Hundred Years of f emigration from larael, both in Israel and in the Jewish Life in America. MacGraw-Hill. rinant of many central aspects of the immigrant Herberg, Will. (1955), 1983. Protestant, Catholic, Jew. Chicago: ,tel. Specifically, the denial of the yordim stigma hraeli immigrants to accept their stay in the host University of Chicago Press. Kass, Drora, and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1982. "Jewish Immigration to the United States from 1967 to the Present: Israelis and Others. " :II auociated with delinquency, low education, and Pp~ 272-294 in Understanding American Jewry edited by Marshal Ifer to young malel of Sephardic descent. Sklare. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. :xoccan celebration of bread at the end of Palsover __.~ 1984. "Israelis in Exile." 1Jutsot Israel 22: 109-119. . each other and taste homemade sweets. Recently, (He~few). I symbol of attachment to a Sephardic identity. Kimhi,' "Shaul. 1990.- "Perceived Change of Self Concept. Self, .ded in Chicago bore linle resemblance to those Values, Well-Being, and Intention to Return Among Kibbutz People who I.mmigrated from Israel to America." Ph.D. dissertation.

5WI in larael, comparable to "nigger" for African Pacif'4:;;Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA. Korazim, Joseph. 1983. "Israeli Families in New York: City: Utilization of Social Services, Unmet Needs and Policy Refonn or Conservative Judaism, are very small Implications". Ph.D. dissertation. School of Social Work, Columbia ttion made il that among"orthodox," "traditional," University, New York, NY. 48 CONTEMPORARY JEWRY URn

__. 1985. ·Raising Children in Ambivalent Immigrant Families: Yaneey, William L., Eugene P. EI Israelis in New York.· Children and Youth Services ·Emergent Ethnicity: A Revic Review-7: 353-362. Sociological Review 41:391-403 lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Yuchtman-Yaar, Ephraim and :M Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Inequality in Israel: Schools a Russell Sage Foundation. Approach. • American Journal ~ liebman, Charles S, and Steven M. Cohen. 1990. 7Wo Worlds 0/ Judaism: 17te Israeli and American Experiences. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. Mittelberg, David and Mary Waters. 1992. ·The Process of Ethnogenesis among Haitian and Israeli Immigrants in the United States.· Ethnic and Racial Studies 15: 412-435. Orleck, Annelise. 1987. ·The Soviet Jews: Life in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn.· pp. 273-304 in New Immigrants in New York edited by Nancy Foner. New York. Columbia Press University. Peres, Yohanan 1971. ·Ethnic Relations in Israel·. American Journal 0/ Sociology 76: 103-141. Rumbaut Ruben, G. and Alejandro Portes. 1990. Immigrant America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shokeid, Moshe. 1988. Children o/Circumstances: Israeli Immigrants in New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. __. 1993. ·One-Night-Stand Ethnicity: The Malaise of Israeli­ Americans.· Israel Social Science Journal 8: 23-50. Semyonov, Moshe and Noah Levin-Epstein. 1987. Hewers 0/ Wood and Drawers 0/ Water: Noncitizen Arabs in the Israeli Labor Market. Ithaca, NY. IRL Cornell University Press. Smooha, Samuel 1978. Israel:Pluralism and Conflict. Berkeley: University of California. Sm~a, Samuel and Yohanan Peres. 1976. ·The Dynamics of Ethnic IDequalities: The Case of Israel.· Social Dynamics. 1: 63-79. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in A!Jer;ca. Berkeley: University of California Press. __) 1991. ·The Intersection Between Race and Ethnicity: Generational Changes Among Caribbean Immigrants in the United States.· Paper presented at American Sociological Association AnnlJal Meeting, Cincinnati Ohio. August.

Uriely, Natan. 1994. ·Rhetorical Ethnicity of Permanent-Sojourners: ~ . The Case of Israeli Immigrants in the Chicago Area.• International Sociology 9: 431-445. Waxm, Chaim I. 1983. America's Jews In Transition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ?ORARY JEWRY URIELY 49

=n in Ambivalent Immigrant Families: Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen and Richard Juliani. 1976. dren and Youth Services WEmergent Etbnicity: A Review and Reformationw. American Sociological Review 41:391-403. C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Yuchtman-Yaar, Ephraim and Moshe Semyonov. 1979. WEthnic in Contemporary America. New York: Inequality in Israel: Schools and Sports: An Expectation States Approach. WAmerican Journal ofSociology 85: 576-590. 'Ven M. Cohen. 1990. 7Wo Worlds of .merican Experiences. New Haven and

~. 'Y Waters. 1992. wThe Process of II and Israeli Immigrants in the United 'Studies 15: 412-435. , SovIet Jews: Life in Brighton Beach, New Immigrants in New York edited by :Olumbia Press University. ; Relations in Israelw. American Journal ndro Portes. 1990. Immigrant America. University of California Press. ~n ofCircumstances: Israeli Immigrants Cornell University Press. and Ethnicity: The Malaise of Israeli­ Science Journal 8: 23-50. Levin-Epstein. 1987. Hewers of Wood Voncitizen Arabs in the Israeli Labor Amell University Press. ul:Pluralism and Conflict. Berkeley: l Peres. 1976. wThe Dynamics of Ethnic ~~ mael. W Social Dynamics. 1: 63-79. rhnic Options: Choosing Identities in rsity of California Press. cetion Between Race and Ethnicity: ong Caribbean Immigrants in the United at American Sociological Association

I' ti Ohio. August. I" rical Etbnicity of Permanent-Sojourners: , rants in the Chicago Area. WInternational erica's Jews In Transition. Philadelphia: