The present study explores the social representations of violence among Argentinian immigrants residing in Israel by the year 2025. This research was conducted through a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews aimed at understanding how these individuals identify and give meaning to their experiences of violence in both Argentina and Israel. The results reveal a paradox: although Israel statistically presents a higher exposure to violence (mainly terrorism), the participants reported feeling safer there than in Argentina. From this paradox, two clearly differentiated categories of social representations emerge. On one hand, there is violence associated with criminal behavior, which is random, unpredictable, and linked to the absence of the State, generating a feeling of chaos and widespread personal insecurity. On the other hand, violence in Israel (terror) is represented as ideological, targeted, expected, and managed by a present State and a cohesive society, which, paradoxically, provides a sense of order and protection. Theoretically, the social representations were analyzed from the perspective of Moscovici, that identifies how the processes of objectification and anchoring shape these contrasting images. One of the main findings suggests that the perception of safety does not depend solely on the frequency of violence, but on the meaning attributed to it. The existence of an interpretive framework transforms the experience of danger, integrating it into social and cultural life, while the absence of this framework maximizes the feeling of vulnerability.
El presente estudio explora las representaciones sociales acerca de como es percibida la violencia en inmigrantes argentinos residentes en Israel durante el año 2025. El mismo se llevo a cabo a través de un enfoque cualitativo basado en entrevistas semiestructuradas orientadas a comprender cómo estas personas identifican y dotan de significado sus experiencias de violencia tanto en Argentina como en Israel. Los resultados revelan una paradoja: aunque Israel presenta estadísticamente una mayor exposición a la violencia (principalmente terrorismo), los participantes manifestaron sentirse más seguros allí que en Argentina. De esta paradoja surgen dos categorias de representaciones sociales claramente diferenciadas. Por un lado, una violencia ascoiada al comportamiento criminal, aleatoria, impredecible y vinculada a la ausencia del Estado, lo que genera una sensación de caos e inseguridad personal generalizada. Por otro lado, la violencia en Israel (terror) es representada como ideológica, dirigida, esperada y gestionada por un Estado presente y una sociedad cohesionada, lo que, paradójicamente, otorga un sentido de orden y protección. Teoricamente, las representaciones sociales fueron analizadas desde la perspectiva de Moscovici, la cual identifica cómo los procesos de objetivación y anclaje configuran estas imágenes contrapuestas. Uno de los principaels hallazgos sostiene que la percepción de seguridad no depende únicamente de la frecuencia de la violencia, sino del significado que se le atribuye. La existencia de un marco interpretativo transforma la experiencia del peligro, integrándolo en la vida social y cultural, mientras que la ausencia de este marco maximiza la sensación de vulnerabilidad.
In our research, we aim to characterize the social representation of violence among Argentinian immigrants living in Israel. Since the establishment of the State of Israel until today, there has been a large influx of immigrants from Argentina, with a significant increase in the number of immigrants during the 1970s and early 1980s (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2024), due to the military dictatorship. Although the Jewish community in Argentina is the largest of all Latin American Jewish communities, there are still only a few studies focusing on the experiences of these immigrants in Israel. Throughout the years, the motivation driving Argentinian immigrants to Israel has gradually shifted, from Zionist, organized immigration to economically driven immigration (
The experience of these immigrants around violence is unique, as both Argentina and Israel are considered countries where the average person is likely exposed to violence or threat in the public imagination. Findings in
When embarking on this research, our aim was to explore the social representations of terror in Argentina and in Israel. In the literature on wars, the concept of terror often functions as a broad analytical category, frequently detached from its political and local meanings. Although there is no one uniform definition, most scholars agree that terror constitutes an act of extraordinary violence, directed against civilians, non-combatants, or the unarmed; aimed at instilling fear within the population; and designed to capture the attention of a wider, often international, audience in pursuit of political objectives (
However, although we asked explicitly about terror, the responses we received revolved around violence. Our interviewees taught us that they distinguished between terror - an act of political violence - which they experienced after their immigration to Israel, and criminal violence, which they often experienced in Argentina but less so in Israel. Yet “criminal violence” is itself a very broad analytical category: any use of force prohibited by law falls under its scope (
Still, the distinction between violence with political objectives (terror against civilians) and criminal violence (infringement of civil rights) proved largely theoretical. From the perspective of our interviewees, the rampant crime in Argentina’s streets and the terror that strikes Israel were not fundamentally different. They interpreted both as threats to their personal security within the framework of their relationship to the collective - the community, the nation, the state. Thus, precisely because migration involves uprooting from one state and settling in another, we decided to examine the differences between their perceptions of violence in Israel, which arose predominantly from terror - versus their perceptions of violence in Argentina, which stemmed primarily from crime. Through these perceptions of violence, we seek to trace the different social representations attached to it.
We will discuss a few themes that emerged from the interviews through the lens of social representation theory. Social representations can be defined as systems of opinions, knowledge, and beliefs particular to a culture, a social category, or a group with regard to objects in the social environment (
One of the recurring themes in the interviews is social cohesion. While this term has many definitions, in this study we will refer to Durkheim’s classic definition. Social cohesion, according to Durkheim, is a characteristic of society that shows the interdependence between individuals. It often includes shared loyalties, mutual moral support, social capital, strong social bonds, trust, solidarity, shared values, and common moral behaviour and norms. Social cohesion will often appear through formal and informal control, and pressures for conformity and caring (
Our research is based on qualitative, semi-structured interviews conducted with six Argentinian immigrants who have lived in Israel for several years, representing diverse ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. The sample size was determined by the principle of thematic saturation. After six interviews, we observed that no new core dimensions or themes regarding the social representation of violence were emerging, and the narratives provided sufficient depth and richness for an exploratory analysis. As is characteristic of qualitative inquiry, our objective was not statistical representativeness but a detailed understanding of the participants' lived experiences and the meanings they attach to violence (Yilmaz, 2013).
The interviews were conducted online, in the participant's preferred language (English, Hebrew, or Spanish), using a similar set of open-ended questions. The questions focused on their experiences with and perceptions of violence and terror in both Argentina and Israel, their immigration process, and their comparative sense of safety.
For data analysis, we employed grounded theory approach. This involved a systematic, iterative process of coding (
In the analysis, we identified recurring patterns that emerged from the interviews and examined them through the lens of social representation theory, with particular emphasis on the gap between perceptions of violence in Argentina and in Israel. While the interviewees all agreed that violence is prevalent in both countries, the way they imagined it differed significantly between Israel and Argentina. The significance of this gap lies in the meanings interviewees attach to their lived experiences. These meanings, grounded in everyday life rather than imposed from above, shape shared understandings of concepts such as terror and violence. Thus, the recurring patterns we observed reflect not objective facts but collective interpretations of reality within each national context.
The process of objectification transforms the abstract concept of violence into concrete images and models that anchor it in everyday reality (
This differential objectification underpins the paradoxical sense of safety: in Israel, violence, though statistically more present, is condensed into specific, named objects and protocols. In Argentina, it dissipates into a general, nameless atmosphere of the everyday, perceived as more unpredictable and personally threatening.
Anchoring is the process by which new, unfamiliar phenomena are interpreted and integrated into pre-existing systems of categories and knowledge (
Furthermore, the perception of the state's role was anchored in their previous experience. The active presence of Israeli police and soldiers was interpreted through the category of “authority”, a category that carried a negative connotation in Argentina due to experiences of absence or threat. By anchoring the Israeli state's actions in this category, yet observing a contrary outcome, the representation of violence in Israel was actively reconstructed as "managed" and "organized," in opposition to the "chaotic" and "neglected" violence anchored in their Argentinian experience. Thus, anchoring was not a mere assimilation but a generative comparative process. It enabled immigrants to build a dual social representation where violence in both countries, though initially subsumed under a broad category of “threat", became finely differentiated in meaning, intentionality, and emotional resonance through the constant dialogue between their past in Argentina and the present in the Israeli reality.
The interviewees described Argentina often as more dangerous than Israel. When asked whether they felt less safe after immigrating to Israel - despite being statistically more likely to experience violence there (
This sense of security extended beyond public spaces into domestic life, as one interviewee explained:
Although they were aware that they are statistically more likely to face violence in Israel, their sense of safety there was stronger. Some interviewees, when asked about their socialization in Israel as new immigrants, said they quickly got used to the unstable security situation as an inseparable part of reality. The interviewees sometimes said “apathy” to terror was part of their assimilation to Israeli society, but adjusting to it was not difficult, as they came from a country they perceived as more violent.
This heightened sense of safety in Israel can perhaps relate to the different social representation of violence the Argentinian immigrants to Israel described in each of the countries. In our interviews we identified four main characteristics of violence which differentiated between their representation of violence in Argentina and Israel: ideological versus random violence, expected and non-expected violence, the role of social cohesion, and the presence/absence of the state.
One aspect differentiating between violence in Argentina and Israel is ideology. As mentioned earlier, we define terror as violence conducted in pursuit of political objectives
There is a difference in the meanings attributed to violence, a distinction between politically-motivated violence and violence described as random or meaningless, as another interviewee explained:
Another theme that emerged in interviewees' descriptions was the expectation of violence, expressed by the interviewees as a constant sense of alarm:
These descriptions suggest that violence in Argentina can occur anywhere and target anyone. While it is expected, its randomness—due to a lack of ideological motive—makes it unpredictable in time, location, and target. By contrast, violence in Israel is also expected—but because it is perceived as intentional and ideologically motivated, it paradoxically creates a greater sense of security.
Another theme that came up that differentiated between the immigrants’ representation of violence in Israel and Argentina is the role of the state.
This description by one of our interviewees emphasizes a sense of trust in the authorities of the Israeli state, which contrasts with her fear and distrust of Argentinian authorities. In her experience, police and soldiers in Argentina were either absent or threatening, whereas their Israeli counterparts evoke a sense of protection.
Another interviewee mentioned that harsh punishments in Israel contributed to his sense of security and also pointed to unemployment in Argentina as a factor in the prevalence of theft. These are both aspects influenced by state policy, which can point to a feeling of absence of the state.
The last theme which we will discuss is the role of social cohesion as a source of safety. Social cohesion can be seen as a sense of belonging to a community, which can be expressed in many social aspects (
While acknowledging the presence of violence in Israel, this interviewee describes a sense of protection based on collective solidarity, expressed by the belief she will be protected. In contrast, in Argentina, she felt isolated - even when surrounded by others. This claim is farther echoed in another interviewee’s words:
The sense of solidarity was often expressed in interviews as a main cause for the sense of safety, even if the immigrants interviewed did not experience terror attacks or other violent situations in Israel. It is important to mention this solidarity was mentioned not only regarding security forces, but also civilians, which suggests the social cohesion goes beyond a trust in the Israeli authorities.
While the statistical likelihood of exposure to violence places Israel and Argentina in comparable positions, the similarities largely end there. The divergent meanings ascribed to violence by Argentinian immigrants reveal how violence may shift from being perceived as an external threat to becoming an integral component of cultural and social life. In Argentina, its frequent occurrence did not lead to normalization; rather, violence remained outside the realm of law and order. As reflected in the interviewees’ accounts, their attitudes toward these experiences were shaped by expectations of what an ideal state ought to provide. Violence was understood as a persistent source of threat, interpreted as an expression of injustice and of the absence of effective governance.
In contrast, the narratives regarding Israel presented a different picture. Despite the high frequency of terror attacks, some interviewees reported not experiencing heightened vigilance, nor perceiving themselves as under constant threat. Violence in Israel was not necessarily seen as anomalous. Instead, terror was framed as an inseparable feature of life in the Jewish state, accepted with resignation and even with a degree of normalization. Governmental responses, such as missile alarms, were interpreted not as failures but as evidence of proper functioning, reinforcing the perception that terror, though pervasive, is embedded within the social fabric.
The themes we identified in our research created two clear social representations of violence the Argentinian immigrants to Israel hold onto - one for Israel and one for Argentina. While violence in Argentina is seen as random, unexpected, meaningless and untreated by authorities and society, violence in Israel was defined seen as terror - directed, intentional, expected and handled by authorities and society. The reason the immigrants feel safer in Israel, even though statistically they are most likely to be affected by violence in Israel, can then be attributed to the fact the violence in Israel has a certain sense, while violence in Argentina is seen as chaotic.
This study has sought to provide a renewed perspective on terror in Israel as experienced by Jewish immigrants from Argentina. Building on this direction, future research might examine the experiences of Jewish migrants who undertook the reverse trajectory - from Israel to Argentina - asking how they confront the rise of criminal violence there and what meanings they ascribe to it. Our findings underscore the analytical value of social representations in shaping how individuals interpret violent events. They demonstrate how meaning itself generates a sense of security and structures citizens’ relations with the state, to the extent that exposure to life-threatening danger becomes integrated into those relations. Further inquiry could investigate the degree to which Israeli emigrants adopt local Argentine narratives of violence once exposed to them, and how such encounters reshape their relationship with the new state.
A broader theoretical expansion might revisit the very concept of political violence through the lens of social representations, raising questions such as: in what ways do states contribute to the production of meaning around political violence directed at civilians, and under what conditions is the absence of governance interpreted by citizens as a form of political violence?