Introduction

Approved in 1950, Israel’s Law of Return grants Jews from anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. On paper, it’s a legal measure, in practice, it has come to symbolize much more. For Jewish communities in the diaspora – particularly in Argentina, where Jewish identity has been shaped by both strong communal ties and broader national narratives – the Law of Return often operates not only as a policy but also as an invitation, or even a call. It constructs Israel as a possible destination that is emotionally, historically, and symbolically loaded.

This research asks how Argentine Jews imagine life in Israel before making Aliyah, and how those ideas change once they settle there. What does Israel represent from a distance and is this representation affected by the Law of Return?

A growing body of research has examined the experiences of Argentinian immigrants in Israel primarily through quantitative approaches, focusing on individual-level variables such as personality traits, ideological orientations, subjective well-being, spirituality, and responses to critical events and sociopolitical crises (e.g., Friedrich & Alvarez, 2020; Salok et al., 2020; Gambino & Gunder, 2024). While these studies offer valuable insights into migrants’ attitudes and psychological dispositions, they provide limited understanding of the shared symbolic frameworks through which Israel, the Law of Return, and the migration process are collectively imagined.

To approach these questions, we draw on the notion of social representations (Moscovici, 2000; Jodelet, 1991), which refers to the shared meanings and narratives through which groups interpret their world. From this perspective, social representations are not understood as mere opinions or individual beliefs, but as organized systems of meaning that allow social groups to make sense of complex objects and guide action in contexts of uncertainty. Through processes of anchoring and objectification, abstract or distant phenomena—such as migration, national belonging, or legal frameworks—are translated into familiar categories, images, and narratives that structure expectations and experiences. This approach is particularly relevant for analyzing migration processes, where prior representations often shape decisions and anticipations, and are subsequently reworked through everyday encounters in the host society. This perspective is particularly relevant in contexts where migration is framed through dense historical, moral, and legal narratives, such as Jewish migration to Israel.

In Argentina, for example, the idea of moving to Israel might be framed as a return to ancestral roots, an act of faith, or even a political stance. But after migration, everyday experiences – language barriers, military service, the tension of regional conflicts, or the social dynamics of Israeli society – can complicate or even contradict those earlier ideas. These tensions open up a space of redefinition, where identities and expectations are forced to adapt.

Within this framework, laws themselves can be understood as social objects that carry symbolic meaning and are interpreted through collective representations (Moscovici, 2000). Rather than functioning solely as formal regulations, legal texts become part of the shared repertoire through which groups define belonging, legitimacy, and moral order (Levin Rozalis, 2015). The Law of Return, in this sense, is not merely a legal mechanism enabling immigration but a symbolic invitation that evokes historical memory and collective identity. Different social representations of the law — as a right, a privilege, a duty, or a promise — can shape how individuals relate to Israel, influencing their motivations to migrate, their expectations of life in Israel, and the ways they later interpret their own experiences as immigrants.

For example, Hacohen (1998) shows how the Law of Return operates as a symbolic embodiment of the link between Israel and the Jewish diaspora, rather than merely a legal instrument. Moreover, Della Pergola’s study (2023) on migration to Israel under the Law of Return highlights how ideological pull-factors and cultural identification interact with more pragmatic structural influences.

Finally, the structure of this article is as follows. First, the methodological and analytical framework of the research is presented, detailing the characteristics of the participants, the data collection procedure, and the analysis strategy employed. Next, the results are presented, organized into thematic dimensions that account for the social representations of the Law of Return, migratory motivations, previous images of Israel, and their reinterpretation based on the experience of living in the country. Subsequently, these findings are discussed in light of social representation theory and previous studies on migration, identity, and Aliyah, with special emphasis on the relationship between representations of the legal framework and the meanings attributed to the migration process. Finally, the article concludes with a summary of the main contributions of the study, its theoretical implications, and some lines for future research.

Method

The research draws on an in-depth qualitative design based on ten in-depth interviews with Jewish immigrants from Argentina who made Aliyah to Israel. The sample size was defined according to qualitative criteria of analytical depth, heterogeneity, and saturation, rather than statistical representativeness. Participants migrated between 1992 and 2021 and were predominantly in their mid- to late twenties at the time of migration, with one participant having immigrated at the age of eighteen. Migration trajectories varied: while most participants relocated with partners or as part of organized programs, one migrated independently.

Recruitment was carried out through informal social networks and a snowball sampling strategy within Argentine–Israeli circles. A purposive sampling approach was adopted in order to capture heterogeneity in terms of migration pathways, ideological orientations, and historical moments of Aliyah.

Data were generated through semi-structured interviews conducted in a narrative format, which enabled participants to reconstruct their biographical trajectories in Argentina, their motivations for migration, their representations of Israel and the Law of Return, and their experiences following settlement. Interviews were conducted online, lasted approximately 90 minutes, and were audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent. All interviews were transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Data analysis combined narrative and thematic approaches. Analytically, attention was paid to the structure and content of participants’ narratives, as well as to recurring symbolic patterns, metaphors, and evaluative statements related to Israel, Jewish identity, and the Law of Return. These elements were examined as indicators of shared social representations across narratives, focusing on how such representations were constructed prior to migration and how they were subsequently reworked through lived experience in Israel. This process allowed for the identification of shared meanings while preserving the singularity of individual trajectories.

Results

The results are organized into thematic sections that reflect the main dimensions through which participants constructed and reworked social representations of Israel, the Law of Return, and the migration experience.

Knowledge and representation of The Law of Return

In order to explore the different ways in which the Law of Return is perceived by Argentine immigrants in Israel; interviewees were asked to describe the law based on their own knowledge and understanding. Their responses revealed a continuum ranging from predominantly technical or bureaucratic descriptions to more explicitly emotional and ideological interpretations.

Among those who approached the Law of Return mainly through its technical aspects, participants tended to focus either on eligibility criteria or on the rights and benefits granted to Jewish immigrants. As one interviewee explained:

It’s basically the law that says who can come, who counts as Jewish, and what you get when you arrive (…) The problem in the law is the definition of who is a Jew because you have here a question of identity or identification (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

In these narratives, the law appeared primarily as an administrative framework regulating access to citizenship. Although it also regulates aspects of identity, which leads to questions about whether or not to identify with Judaism. This point is relevant, as there is a regulation whereby children of Jewish mothers can opt for the Law of Return, but it calls into question their affiliation with that branch of the family rather than that of the father. In this way, the law itself raises questions about biography and the representation of religion.

Several participants also mentioned what they described as a connection between the law’s definition of Jewishness and the Nazi Nuremberg Race Laws. Although no historical evidence supports this connection, its appearance in the interviews is analytically meaningful. One participant stated:

I always heard that the definition comes from the Nuremberg laws, like an ironic twist of history. It is unthinkable that an experience that brought so much pain could refer to something positive (Participant 4, female).

Interestingly, this association was unfamiliar to the Israeli-born researchers, which raised questions about how this narrative circulates in the diaspora and what symbolic function it serves. Even when framed as a technical detail, this reference positioned the Law of Return within a broader moral narrative, reinforcing the image of Israel as a refuge created in response to the Holocaust.

On the more emotional and ideological side of the spectrum, participants described the law using expressions such as “an opportunity to return,” “the land of the Jewish people,” or “a law that saves Jewish lives.” One interviewee remarked:

It’s not just a law; it’s the possibility of coming back to where Jews belong. It’s like saying you’re not just allowed to come, you’re supposed to come (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

In these accounts, the term “return,” already embedded in the law’s title, was loaded with historical and moral meaning. Referring to Israel as the land of the Jewish people implied not only a right to migrate, but a normative expectation. In short, it refers to Israel as a duty in the lives of Jews born in other territories. The law is no longer conceptualized as a potential for action, but as a mandate to be fulfilled.

Taken together, these narratives indicate that the Law of Return is collectively represented not merely as a legal or administrative framework, but as a dense symbolic object, organized around tensions between technical regulation and moral obligation, and between individual rights and collective historical memory.

Immigrating to Israel: Motivations and Circumstances

To better understand participants’ migration trajectories, interviewees were asked about the timing, circumstances, and motivations surrounding their decision to immigrate to Israel. Most participants migrated in their mid-to-late twenties, after completing university studies, with one participant immigrating at the age of eighteen and joining the military. Years of immigration ranged from 1992 to 2021. While one participant migrated alone, most arrived with partners or through organized programs such as Taglit, Masa, or Tapuz. Nearly all had visited Israel prior to migration.

Participants’ narratives revealed different pathways leading to migration. For some, Israel was a clearly intended destination, grounded in ideological commitments and a sense of Jewish belonging. One participant explained:

I grew up with Zionism, so moving to Israel felt like the natural next step (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

For others, migration emerged more gradually and was not initially driven by ideology. As one interviewee noted:

My main goal was to leave Argentina; Israel wasn’t the plan at first (…) It wasn’t about ideology, Israel just felt like a place where young people could build a future (Participant 2, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 24).

In these cases, Israel became a destination due to a combination of opportunities and relationships. Study programs, employment prospects, and romantic partnerships played a significant role. These narratives suggest that motivations for migration were often layered, shifting over time and shaped by both structural opportunities and symbolic meanings. In short, they reveal the existence of a dual phenomenon. On the one hand, religious motives presented as a career; and, on the other, the disconnect between cultural expectations and the institutionalized path to their fulfilment.

From a social representations perspective, these migration trajectories reveal that Aliyah was not guided by a single, fixed motivation, but by a dynamic interplay between ideological meanings, personal projects, and perceived opportunities. Israel was variously represented as a moral destination, a pragmatic solution, or a space of future possibility, with these representations shifting over time and across biographical contexts. Rather than opposing ideology and pragmatism, participants’ narratives suggest that migration decisions were anchored in shared symbolic frameworks that allowed individuals to reconcile collective meanings with individual life courses.

Imagining Israel: Expectations and Early Representations

Before immigrating, participants carried with them a set of ideas and expectations about Israel shaped by family narratives, community education, and collective memory. These representations often combined ideological and emotional elements. Israel was imagined not only as a secure Jewish homeland, but also as a symbolic space of belonging. As one participant recalled:

Israel was always talked about as something meaningful, not just another country (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

At the same time, the interviews revealed a broad range of meanings attached to migration, from ideological commitment to personal and professional aspirations. For some participants, these dimensions overlapped, while for others they remained loosely connected.

From a social representations perspective, these accounts suggest that Israel was initially represented as a meaningful and morally charged destination, shaped less by concrete knowledge of everyday life than by collective narratives circulating within families and communal settings. These early representations provided a symbolic framework through which migration was imagined and justified, while leaving open tensions between ideological meanings and individual life projects that would later be reworked through lived experience.

Imagining Israel: Ideals and Expectations

Across the interviews, Israel was frequently described as a place of promise and moral significance. For some, it represented the realization of Zionist ideals and historical continuity. One participant described Israel simply as:

The country of the Jewish people (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

Others emphasized images of modernity and opportunity, highlighting technological innovation and collective purpose. As one interviewee recalled:

From Argentina, Israel seemed so advanced—the technology, the army, everything looked perfect, like it all worked (Participant 2, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 24).

These representations were often reinforced by earlier visits, which presented Israel as vibrant and welcoming. Even participants who were not ideologically motivated described Israel as an attractive environment for young Jews. However, several acknowledged that their expectations were shaped more by admiration from afar than by concrete knowledge. One participant admitted:

I didn’t really know what daily life was like; I only knew the image (…) You realize very quickly that things are much more complicated than you imagined (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

Upon arrival, participants encountered a more complex reality. Some described moments of ideological disillusionment, particularly in relation to politics, bureaucracy, or religious tensions. Others emphasized the emotional warmth they experienced, describing social openness and solidarity as key resources during adaptation.

For many, this process involved reinterpreting Israel from a mythical homeland into a living, imperfect society. Over time, frustration often gave way to a more grounded sense of belonging. One participant summarized this shift by saying:

You come here and realize it’s a miracle that anything works—and somehow, it still does. (Participant 5, male).

From a social representations perspective, these accounts indicate that Israel was initially represented through idealized images of moral purpose, national continuity, and modern efficiency, which were progressively challenged through lived experience. The transition from idealization to disillusionment did not necessarily entail rejection, but rather a process of re-anchoring abstract collective meanings in the practical realities of everyday life. In this sense, Israel came to be re-represented not as a flawless ideal, but as a complex social space in which belonging was renegotiated over time.

Life in Argentina

Before immigrating, all participants described growing up in families that maintained Jewish traditions to varying degrees. While levels of religious observance differed, all reported some connection to Jewish practices and holidays. Most recalled a stronger attachment to religion during childhood and a gradual distancing during adolescence or early adulthood. What unified these experiences was a broadly traditional, rather than strictly religious, approach to Judaism. As one participant explained:

We weren’t religious, but Jewish life was always there (Participant 5, male).

These narratives reflect a form of cultural Judaism, sustained through routine and tradition rather than theological belief. Jewish identity was often lived in specific contexts—holidays, schools, or communal spaces—rather than as an all-encompassing lifestyle.

Community institutions played a central role in shaping participants’ sense of belonging. Many recalled Jewish clubs and community centers that combined education, sports, and cultural activities. Although some participants distanced themselves from these spaces during adolescence, many later reconnected through Zionist-oriented programs such as Hillel, Taglit, or Masa. One participant noted:

I wasn’t religious, but those programs made me feel connected again (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

At the same time, several participants described growing up in what they referred to as a “bubble.” This experience involved strong internal cohesion alongside relative separation from broader Argentine society. As one interviewee reflected:

Growing up Jewish in Argentina meant being very close to each other, but far from everyone else (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

This ambivalence shaped early understandings of identity and later influenced perceptions of integration after migration.

From a social representations perspective, these accounts indicate that Jewish life in Argentina was collectively represented as a space of cultural continuity and communal protection, rather than strict religious observance. This representation combined familiarity and belonging with experiences of social boundary-making, producing an ambivalent sense of identity characterized by both cohesion and separation. Such early representations of Jewishness provided a symbolic framework that later shaped how participants interpreted belonging, difference, and integration in the Israeli context.

Life in Israel

After immigrating to Israel, participants described an adaptation process marked by both challenges and enrichment. The initial period involved bureaucratic difficulties, language barriers, and emotional uncertainty, but also a growing sense of familiarity. Several participants highlighted cultural similarities between Argentinians and Israelis. As one explained:

Israelis and Argentinians are both warm, loud, and always ready to help (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

Over time, participants described a gradual reconstruction of belonging through work, family life, and everyday participation. Israel came to be experienced not only as a destination but as a home.

Religious life in Israel took on new meanings. For some, the public presence of Jewish practices—such as Shabbat or national holidays—created a sense of connection without requiring personal observance. One participant noted:

Here you feel Jewish without having to do anything special (Participant 1, male, arrived in Israel in 1992).

Others described renewed engagement with religious practices, often linked to raising children or living in religious communities. Conversely, some reported that religious observance became less central than it had been in Argentina. As one explained:

In Argentina I went to the temple on Yom Kippur, and here I don’t anymore (Participant 2, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 24, expresses dissatisfaction with Argentina).

Social integration was often described through everyday encounters. Participants emphasized interpersonal warmth and spontaneous support. One recalled:

People I barely knew invited me for holidays, helped me with everything (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

Community was experienced not as a formal institution but as an informal social network embedded in daily life.

Cultural adaptation emerged as a meaningful aspect of settlement. Learning Hebrew and adjusting to social codes were challenging but also empowering. Over time, many participants described holding both Israeli and Argentine identities. As one reflected:

In Argentina I felt Jewish; here I sometimes feel Argentine—it’s like my identity switched places (Participant 3, male, arrived in Israel at the age of 30).

Economic life also played a key role in the sense of belonging. Finding employment provided structure and recognition. While some continued in their professions, others shifted paths, opening businesses or pursuing new opportunities. Despite initial difficulties, most participants eventually achieved stability, which reinforced their sense of having built a life in Israel.

From a social representations perspective, these narratives illustrate a process of reconfiguration in which Israel is progressively represented not only as a symbolic homeland, but as a lived social space structured by everyday practices, relationships, and institutional participation. In this process, prior representations of Jewish identity—largely shaped in the Argentine context—are reworked, producing shifts in the salience of religious, national, and cultural identifications. The reported inversion of identity markers, whereby Jewishness becomes implicit and nationality more salient, reflects a broader transformation in how belonging is symbolically organized after migration.

Discussion

The findings suggest that migration from Argentina to Israel involves more than a change of residence. For the participants interviewed, it unfolded as a process in which expectations, meanings, and forms of belonging were gradually confronted, adjusted, and, in some cases, unsettled. Prior to migration, Israel tended to be imagined through collective memories, Zionist narratives, and experiences rooted in community life in Argentina. Once in Israel, these images did not simply collapse, but were tested against everyday situations that often-revealed tensions between ideals and lived realities. As several narratives show, Israel came to be understood less as a symbolic abstraction and more as a concrete, and at times contradictory, social space.

In social representations theory, such transformations can be understood through the mechanisms of anchoring and objectification (Moscovici, 2000; Jodelet, 1991). Participants’ accounts suggest that abstract collective objects—Israel as homeland, the Law of Return, and “Aliyah” itself—were initially anchored in familiar categories acquired in Argentine communal life (e.g., refuge, moral duty, continuity), and objectified through concrete images and narratives that provided coherence and legitimacy to migration decisions. After settlement, these representations were not replaced but re-anchored in everyday practices, encounters, and institutional experiences, producing more complex and sometimes contradictory meanings. This perspective helps clarify why the same legal framework could be narrated as administrative procedure, moral mandate, or symbolic promise, and why shifts in belonging were often articulated through changes in what became salient, taken-for-granted, or questioned in daily life.

From this perspective, the findings resonate with the idea that social representations are not static frameworks but are continuously reshaped through experience (Moscovici, 2000). Meanings associated with home, belonging, and peoplehood appeared neither uniform nor stable; rather, they were negotiated over time, often through mundane interactions and routine practices that gained significance only retrospectively.

Jewish identity, as it emerged in the interviews, was marked by both continuity and change. Participants did not describe a rupture with their previous identities, nor did they portray integration as a linear process. Instead, identity appeared as something reorganized through daily life in Israel. Certain elements associated with Argentine Jewish upbringing were maintained, while others were reinterpreted in response to Israeli social norms. In this sense, belonging was articulated through a hybrid configuration, not as a deliberate project, but as the outcome of adaptation and practical engagement with a new environment.

These findings also raise questions regarding dominant approaches to immigrant absorption. When Aliyah is addressed primarily through administrative or economic indicators, important dimensions of the migratory experience remain underexplored. The interviews suggest that emotional orientation, symbolic attachment, and everyday recognition play a significant role in how migrants come to feel “at home.” Policies and programs that facilitate social interaction, language acquisition, and community-based connections may therefore be particularly relevant, especially during the early stages of settlement.

The Law of Return occupied a central yet ambivalent place in participants’ narratives. While legally consistent, its meanings varied considerably. Some participants described it as a deeply meaningful framework that affirmed belonging and historical continuity, whereas others referred to it in more procedural terms, with limited emotional resonance. This variability suggests that the law functions not only as a legal mechanism but also as a symbolic object, interpreted differently depending on personal trajectories and prior socialization.

A closer examination of the interviews points to a link between these representations and the ways migration decisions were narrated. Participants who framed the Law of Return in ideological or emotionally charged terms tended to present their migration as intentional and value-oriented. By contrast, those who emphasized its administrative aspects often described their arrival in Israel as contingent or circumstantial. Rather than suggesting a causal relationship, this pattern highlights how representations of the law provide narrative resources through which migration trajectories are retrospectively organized and made meaningful.

By focusing on Argentine immigrants, this study contributes to ongoing discussions about diaspora, migration, and identity in contemporary Jewish contexts. It shows how meanings associated with Israel are neither simply reproduced nor entirely transformed through migration, but are reworked through experience. From this angle, the outcomes of Aliyah cannot be assessed solely in terms of integration or adjustment, but also in relation to how migrants negotiate continuity, belonging, and meaning over time.

Bibliography

Della Pergola, S. (2023). Migration to Israel in the Framework of the Law of Return (Aliyah): What We Know, What We Understand. Hagira. Israel Journal of Migration, 14, 9–51.

Friedrich, M., & Alvarez, F. (2020). Acculturation in Jewish Argentines Migrating to Israel. PSOCIAL, 6(1), 26-36.

Gambino, B. & Gunder, H. H. (2024). Centrality of Events and Changes in Political Identity: The Impact of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict on Argentine Immigrants. Psocial 10 (2), 5–24.

Hacohen, D. (1998). The law of return as an embodiment of the link between Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora. Journal of Israeli History, 19 (1), 61–89.

Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and Social Representations. University of California Press.

Levin-Rozalis, M. (2007). Playing by the rules: Social representations of 'Law' as the socio-cognitive mediating mechanism between law and society. Theory & Psychology, 17 (1), 5–31.

Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. Polity Press.

Salok, S. A., Dahan, D., Axelirud, E., & Tovim, J. B. (2020). Perception of Threat in Argentinian Immigrants to Israel: Personality, Out-Group Exposure, Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. {PSOCIAL}, 6(1), 9-21.

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 6723