Introduction
Fear is one of the primary human emotions, whose fundamental function is the preservation of the individual and – by extension – the species.1 It is a reaction to a sensation perceived by the individual as a threat and is, as such, an integral part of the human experience.2 Anxiety, while sharing certain characteristics with fear, is in itself a distinct emotion. In this sense, psychology particularly emphasizes the distinction between a reaction to the present moment (fear) and to the uncertainty of the future (anxiety).3 Since the future cannot be predicted, anxiety is an inevitable – if to a varying degree – part of every individual’s existence when facing a new experience.
Every migration process involves a transition from a familiar to a less familiar or completely unknown environment. In the broadest sense, one can therefore assume that each individual experiences a feeling of fear related to the point of departure (which is known) and a feeling of anxiety related to the destination of the migration process (which is unknown).4 This dichotomy can best be analyzed using the historical categories of “space of experience” and “horizon of expectations,” as defined by Reinhart Koselleck.5 Particularly relevant in this sense is Koselleck’s assertion that the relationship between these two categories is and never can be direct or absolute.6 Each individual migrant defines expectations from their new environment based on personal experience. Deviations from the space of experience expected by the individual typically imply an assumption that the future will, in some way, be better than what would represent a direct or objective continuation of what has already been experienced.7 The feeling of anxiety can thus be defined as an individual’s reaction to the possibility that the destination of their migration may not align with the specific deviation from their space of experience that constitutes their personal expectation horizon.8
This paper aims to more precisely define what caused the anxiety experienced by individuals participating in the process of organized Jewish emigration from Yugoslavia to Israel, as well as the ways in which it manifested.9 The main premise of the paper is that the feeling of anxiety within this process was above all a reaction to undesired deviations from the personal expectation horizons of individuals taking part in the migration – deviations that migrants faced on a daily basis due to their objective lack of knowledge about the reality of life in the newly established Jewish state. The research primarily draws on documents preserved at the Archives of Jewish historical Museum (Jevrejski istorijski Muzej) in Belgrade.
***
The centuries-long dream of restoring the national homeland of the Jewish people finally came to fruition in May of 1948. What followed was one of the most consequential migratory movements of the twentieth century. Between 1948 and 1951, approximately seven hundred thousand immigrants from around the world arrived in the newly established state.10 The initial population of Israel nearly doubled,11 and the intensity of immigration played a defining role in the establishment and long-term development of the new state.12 Such population growth also brought a range of acute practical problems,13 the most serious of which proved to be the lack of adequate infrastructure and a significant mismatch between supply and demand in the local labor market.
When Israeli independence was declared and mass immigration began, around 60% of the Jewish population of Mandatory Palestine was concentrated in three major urban centers (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Jaffa), while the rest lived in small agricultural settlements.14 In 1951, the newly established state adopted a population distribution plan with the long-term goal of creating medium-sized settlements that would fill existing gaps in the urbanization process and eventually become centers of regional development.15 Dispersing the population across the widest possible area also served the strategic aim of strengthening borders, due to fears of attacks from neighboring Arab countries.16
In its early years, Israel's economy continued to develop along the lines previously established during the British Mandate rule. By far the largest investments were directed toward agriculture.17 Industrial development was hindered by a lack of investment, natural resources, a free trade policy, and the small size of the domestic market. Accordingly, the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy in Israel occurred gradually.18 In the first years of statehood, in addition to farmers, what the new Middle Eastern state needed most were manual laborers and skilled technical workers – specifically trained mechanics.19 Since the majority of immigrants were traders, artisans, and members of the liberal professions, most had to be retrained.
Members of the Jewish community in Yugoslavia who participated in one of the five waves of organized emigration to Israel in the period between 1948 and 195220 accounted for just over one percent of the total number of immigrants who arrived in the newly established state during those years. However, these migrants made up approximately 60% of the total number of Yugoslav Jews who had survived the Second World War.21
Although the tragic consequences of the Holocaust played a key role in triggering mass migration to Israel, the decisions of individual members of the Yugoslav Jewish community to move to the newly formed state in the Middle East were also significantly influenced by various implications of the socio-political changes accompanying the rise of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to power.22 The construction of a system of social ownership through nationalization, which Yugoslav communist authorities initiated immediately after the war, directly copying the Soviet model,23 had an especially dramatic effect on the local Jewish community.24 Alongside the property of occupiers and collaborators, the state also took ownership of property confiscated from Jewish victims of the Holocaust during the war. The subsequent nationalization of the private sector25 also disproportionately affected Jews in Yugoslavia due to their prominent involvement in trade and banking.26
Most migrants left Yugoslavia assuming that the outcome of the emigration process would fulfill one of their overarching goals – reuniting with (often their only) surviving relatives, honoring personal Zionist ideals, abandoning the socio-political framework of the postwar Yugoslav state, built on Marxist-Leninist principles, and distancing themselves from the anti-Semitic ideas lingering within Yugoslav society.27 Many of these goals were achieved through the mere act of participation in the process of organized emigration. However, it appears that the migrants failed to consider that the deviation from their personal space of experience might not necessarily be positive or aligned with their individual needs.28 The specific conditions of everyday life in Israel made this fact clear from the outset.
Farewell to the Old
Despite warnings coming from prominent figures within the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities and the Hitachdut Olei29 Yugoslavia,30 it appears that migrants within the first wave of organized emigration viewed the newly established state of Israel entirely through the lens of their personal horizon of expectations.31 It is impossible to quantitatively or qualitatively assess how much the situation they encountered in Israel deviated from their expectations. However, it can be assumed that the majority of migrants adapted over time and that their initial dissatisfaction was not enough to trigger any concrete steps towards reversing the process. Accordingly, it is impossible to estimate, even approximately, how many of the migrants who left Yugoslavia in late 1948 and early 1949 found the reality of the Jewish state too far removed from their expectations.32 On the other hand, the small number of available testimonies33 suggest that a significant number of migrants from Yugoslavia were sufficiently shocked by the conditions in the newly established state in the Middle East to lodge their specific complaints to the Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia.34
Negative reactions from first-wave migrants and inquiries from community members back home planning to move to Israel prompted the executives of the Hitachdut to submit a detailed report on local conditions in Israel to the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities in early March 1949.35 Reiterating that the lack of housing and the specific labor market situation were the most pressing issues, the report also warned migrants about the high costs of education. Regarding the possibility of finding employment in Israel, it was explicitly pointed out that no one who had begun their university studies in Yugoslavia could be guaranteed the opportunity to obtain a degree in Israel, especially since the new state most urgently needed manual laborers. The advisories extended by the Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia were communicated to members of the Jewish community registered for the second wave of organized emigration.36
Various difficulties faced by individual during the first wave of organized emigration to Israel were summed up in a letter the Hitachdut addressed to the Federation of Jewish religious communities of Yugoslavia. It appears that individuals leaving in subsequent waves of organized emigration viewed the problems listed in this letter as the primary potential undesirable deviations from their personal horizons of expectations awaiting them in Israel. In this sense, until the very end of the mass emigration from Yugoslavia to Israel, the anxiety felt by migrants was a reaction to the assumption that they would not be able to provide for themselves and their families in their new homeland or that, in a broader sense, their very existence would be threatened. The formal framework of organized emigration significantly contributed to these feelings.37
By joining in organized emigration to Israel, members of the local Jewish community permanently renounced the properties they were leaving behind in Yugoslavia,38 while the export of their remaining property was regulated by relatively strict rules.39 They were allowed to take their personal belongings, furniture, and items deemed to have practical use, either in the household or for professional activity. Export of any kind of machinery or industrial equipment was also explicitly prohibited.40
Migrants sought to tailor the formal framework of organized emigration from Yugoslavia to Israel to their individual needs whenever possible.41 They appear to have been particularly persistent in this regard when it came to the export of movable property. Beyond a mere reaction to the assumption that their material situation in the newly established state of Israel would be uncertain,42 the reluctance of those registered for emigration to part with even the most modest belongings can also be understood as an attempt to preserve at least a symbolic connection with their previous life in Yugoslavia.43 This is an element of the individual’s personal horizon of expectations that was only hinted at within the framework of organized emigration, yet any potential deviation from it seemingly caused migrants particularly intense anxiety.
Ahead of the second wave of organized emigration, Miroslav Milić from Varaždin approached the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities to request an exception to the general rules that would allow him to export a piano.44 He justified this request by pointing out his children’s need to continue developing their musical skills. In this sense, the Jewish religious community in Zagreb addressed the Federation ahead of the third wave of organized emigration regarding the export of musical instruments in general.45 Instruments were exempt from the export ban on two grounds – as a household item, as well as an item necessary for the individual’s professional activity.46 Formal inquiries regarding their export were needless. They can thus be understood as an expression of anxiety triggered by the possibility that the migrant’s lives in Israel would drastically differ from what they expected them to be, and an effort made to control the outcome of the migration process, even in the most minimal of ways.
Ahead of the fourth wave of organized emigration to Israel, Ladislav Mačaš from Duga Resa expressed the desire to take with him certain objects necessary for his work as a comedian.47 It remains unclear how the items in question deviated from the general permission to export household objects, yet the request itself is highly indicative. Since the newly established Jewish state in its early years was certainly not an environment conducive to earning a living by working as a comedian, the primary function of these items could only have been maintaining a symbolic connection with the migrant’s former life in Yugoslavia.
The request made by Max Bretler from Split seems to have been somewhat similarly motivated as the one made by Ladislav Mačaš.48 In preparing for the first wave of organized emigration, he asked Federation officials for permission to take a sailboat to Israel, directly contradicting the general ban on exporting any machinery.49 Arguing the advantages of making such an exception, he stated the possibility that the sailboat could serve as a lifeboat in case of an emergency. This was certainly just another attempt at controlling the outcome of the emigration process as much as possible. It seems that his request was denied.50
The Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was clear in its instructions regarding the export of movable property to Israel, explicitly prohibiting migrants from taking their bicycles with them.51 It was only individuals registered for the last wave of organized emigration who protested this rule. They requested that the existing restrictions be changed; emphasizing that the manufacturing of bicycles had only just begun in Yugoslavia.52 In this particular case, the migrants’ attempt to circumvent existing export rules in order to bring part of their former lives with them was perhaps most clearly expressed.
A unique example of migrants’ efforts to avoid unwanted deviations from their personal horizon of expectations, shaped by their life in Yugoslavia, was that of the Adlerstein family from Senta, who left for Israel during the second wave of organized migration.53 Adolf Adlerstein contacted the Federation to inquire about the possibility of exporting a foldable wooden house.54 The request itself was likely a reaction to a warning issued by the leaders of Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia at the end of the first wave of organized emigration.55 In light of the lack of adequate housing for immigrants, those registered for emigration were encouraged, whenever possible, to make use of exporting portable wooden homes.56 More broadly, this request should be understood as an attempt by an individual emigrant to “transplant” their space of experience into the framework of their new surroundings. An additional element of the desire to control the outcome of emigration as much as possible was the request of Adlerstein’s daughter, Jelena, who asked the Federation if it would be possible for her to bring her pet dog to Israel.57
The generally precarious material situation of the Jewish community in postwar Yugoslavia made the export of property to the new homeland in the Middle East not only an extraordinarily significant but also a potentially traumatic experience for migrants. In this respect, even a relatively banal element of the organized emigration process, such as luggage transport, could negatively impact an individual migrant’s initial impression of his new surroundings. Even if unforeseen circumstances could be avoided, the process of transporting the migrant’s property to Israel proved as a rule to be unreliable enough to provoke a certain degree of anxiety, even in the best of cases. Since luggage arrived in Israel by separate transports, individual migrants had to manage living with limited resources in a new and unfamiliar environment for a certain time.58 Failures in transport and unforeseen circumstances further complicated the situation.59
After the successful completion of the first wave of organized emigration, Karl Vidrih from Jaffa contacted the Federation of Jewish religious communities of Yugoslavia in late February 1949.60 His luggage was not on the steamer “Bosna”, which had arrived with the first wave of migrants’ luggage from Yugoslavia in Israel a few days earlier.61 He learned from an unnamed source that his lift van had been held in Rijeka shortly before loading, but he did not receive an explanation of why this had happened. Anđelko Tajtacak from Netanya faced similar problems.62 One of his suitcases was confiscated in Rijeka and even marked so that it would not accidentally be shipped to Israel at the beginning of 1949. Ladislav Lamper from Bet Olim contacted the freight company before reaching out to the Federation but was unable to find out why the shipping of his suitcase was prohibited.63 By the time preparations for the second wave of organized emigration were underway, the problem of luggage delays had become so acute that the Jewish religious community in Čakovec appealed to the Federation, requesting that the possibility of increasing the allowed weight of personal luggage traveling together with migrants to Israel be considered.64
Problems with the export of migrants’ property persisted throughout the entire process of organized emigration. Due to the overall small number of participants in the fifth wave of organized emigration, migrants were transported by train to Naples, where they boarded a regular passenger ship for Haifa.65 The luggage wagon, which was supposed to be attached to the express train carrying the migrants, had departed earlier that day with a freight train,66 which resulted from a mistake made in Zagreb. Although it was eventually found and held in Sežana, from where it continued its journey to Naples, even the temporary loss of luggage was an extremely unpleasant experience for the migrants.
Facing the New
The limited or highly specific demands of the Israeli labor market were one of the reasons that led migrants to assume that in their new homeland they would be unable to financially support themselves and their families.67 Their unrealistic expectations of a state at war with its Arab neighbors68 resulted in disappointment and even bitterness in some individuals.69 On the other hand, some attempted to adjust their personal horizon of expectations to the situation in Israel, thereby easing the anxiety that accompanied the assumption that reality would fall short of their hopes.
Even before receiving formal warnings from the Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia,70 a certain number of prospective emigrants presumed that conditions in the newly established state would not meet their idealized expectations. Accordingly, they tried to prepare as best they could for the anticipated discrepancy between ideals and reality. A notable example is the driving-mechanic courses that immigrants attended, hoping to acquire practical skills they would be able to use to find employment in their new country. These courses were organized by local communities at the initiative of the migrants themselves.
While it is reasonable to assume that similar efforts occurred in other communities, the sources provide detailed data only on the driving and mechanics courses in Belgrade and Zagreb. In Belgrade, training began on September 20th, 1948 with theory classes taught by Josif Polak, an auto mechanic, and Jakov Polak, a technical student.71 Twenty-seven participants completed two practical modules: first in a garage, and then on two cars leased from Aleksandar Čarapić and Velimir Bot. Each trainee had to log ten hours of field driving before they could apply to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Traffic Police) to take their driving exam.
While the course in Belgrade was already underway, a group of youths from Zagreb who had registered for emigration also approached the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities, expressing their desire to leave for Israel “with at least one practical skill in hand.”72 Although there is a lack of detailed accounts of the course in Zagreb, it likely followed a similar format to the one in Belgrade.
While the driving and mechanics courses resulted from migrants' assumptions about the skills they would need in Israel,73 Hebrew language courses were a direct response to warnings received from the Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia about labor market conditions in Israel.74 Migrants were told that without a command of Hebrew, they would most likely be unable to work in their professions – even if their occupations were in demand. Sources indicate that Hebrew classes, like the driving courses, were organized locally in cooperation with the Federation, depending on the number of individuals showing interest.
The most detailed account found in the available documents concerns the Hebrew course organized by the Zagreb Jewish Religious Community. The course was taught by the chief rabbi of Zagreb, Hinko Urbah.75 The main problem faced by migrants attending the course was a shortage of textbooks.76 As the interest grew, the local community had to repeatedly request assistance from other Jewish religious communities and the Federation.77 Following the distribution of textbooks provided by the JOINT,78 the Federation executives attempted to acquire additional books through the Israeli embassy in Prague.79
The seriousness with which future migrants treated the warnings received after the first wave is also reflected in their approach to higher education. Having been cautioned that they would likely be unable to obtain a degree in Israel, some individuals deliberately postponed leaving Yugoslavia until the last possible moment to complete their studies. Although aware that the new state primarily needed manual laborers, migrants seemed to regard a degree as a guarantee of a more stable, long-term future in Israel,80 at the same time securing an outcome that better aligned with their personal expectations of their new surroundings.81
Ahead of the second wave of organized emigration, the Federation received appeals from two students at the University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Mechanical Engineering – Oto Almozlino82 and Karlo Kudiš83 – requesting to join a later transport due to exams scheduled for June.84 Kudiš even expressed the hope of leaving for Israel with a degree, planning to expedite its issuance. Within the same migration wave, Vojislav Ungar from Subotica made a similar request to delay his departure until he could complete his last exam and finish his studies at the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry with a degree in agronomy.85
One of the most striking responses to the concern that the new Jewish state might not meet their personal expectations was the effort by some migrants to preserve the possibility of returning – contrary to the formal framework of the migration process, requiring renunciation of Yugoslav citizenship before leaving the country.86 They cited circumstances that led them to view this renunciation to be too risky in the long-term. These cases resulted in open insistence by Yugoslav migrants on the assumption that Israel might not meet their personal expectations – or, indirectly, the anxiety arising from that possibility.87
The Jewish Religious Community in Bitolj wrote to the Federation in preparation of the first wave and regarding the application of Marija Kon Dobrovšek and her husband Vladislav Kon.88 Being Catholic herself, she wished to retain the option of returning to her brothers and mother in Yugoslavia in the case of her husband passing away.89 She petitioned to avoid giving up Yugoslav citizenship. Records do not clarify the outcome, but it is unlikely that her request could be granted.
Another somewhat similar case is that of Jova and Draga Gigović, who asked the Federation for formal confirmation that they would be granted Israeli citizenship after successfully completing the emigration process.90 They claimed they needed such a document to be released from Yugoslav citizenship – something that normally was not part of the emigration procedure. Their insistence on formal assurance of Israeli citizenship can only be understood as apprehension at the possibility of becoming trapped in the migration process without legal protection from either country – a particularly dramatic potential deviation from their expectations of the organized emigration process.
Conclusion
The possibility that Israel might not live up to their expectations never crossed the minds of those in the Yugoslav Jewish community who made their way to the newly established state during the first wave of organized emigration in 1948–49. Cautions about the specific conditions awaiting them—which officials of the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities had shared with those intending to leave for Israel—were, it seems, largely taken lightly. What ultimately gave rise to concerns of possible dissatisfaction with what would be the challenges of everyday life in the newly established state of Israel was the letter by the Hitachdut Olei Yugoslavia addressed to migrants of the second wave, containing the most common complaints that the organization's officials encountered up to that point. The anxiety experienced by participants in the final four waves of organized emigration from Yugoslavia to Israel was rooted in the distinct possibility that their new environment would not meet their specific expectations.
Striving to cope with what they perceived as an unwanted deviation from their horizon of expectations, thus eliminating the underlying cause of anxiety they were experiencing, migrants from Yugoslavia, on the one hand, sought to adapt the process of organized emigration to suit their own needs and, while on the other, tried adapt to the conditions awaiting them in the newly formed Jewish state. These two approaches in dealing with the uncertainties of life in the newly formed state of Israel were perhaps most obvious in the way Yugoslav migrants addressed the concern that they would not be able to provide for their families. In trying to somehow circumvent existing rules on taking their belongings to Israel, the primary goal of Yugoslav migrants was to preserve as much of their assets as possible; however, the significance of maintaining a symbolic connection to the home they left behind should not be underestimated. The other way migrants attempted to secure their livelihood in the newly established Jewish state was by acquiring skills they assumed would be useful in the local labor market. Local communities used the brief interval between emigration registration and actual departure to organize driving courses and Hebrew lessons. On the other hand, migrants remained committed to obtaining higher education, evidently convinced that it would secure a better life for them in the long term.
While it is impossible to establish a link between the anxiety experienced by members of the Yugoslav community leaving for Israel within the process of organized emigration and a certain number of them returning, individuals attempting to keep the possibility of coming back open is very indicative of their state of mind. This can be seen as a culmination of the overarching assumption that the newly established state would fail to live up to the idealistic expectations of migrants coming from Yugoslavia, but might in fact prove to be their direct negation.
Archival Sources
AJIM: Archives of the Jewish Historical Museum (Arhiv jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja), Belgrade
– Al: Aliyah 1948, p.k: provisional box (privremena kutija) 757
– Al. 1948, p.k. 856
– Al. 1948, p.k. 827
– Al. 1949, p.k. 753
Literature
Ahtar, Salman. Psihologija patnje. Beograd: Clio, 2017.
Alfassi, Itzhak. Immigration and Settlement. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1973.
Bazzani, Giacomo. “Futures in Action: Expectations, Imaginaries and Narratives of the Future.” Sociology 57 (2023), 2: 387-388.
Bićanić, Rudolf. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.
Brandl, Naida-Mihal. Židovi u Hrvatskoj nakon Holokausta. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2023.
Brandl, Naida-Mihal. Oduzimanje židovske imovine u Hrvatskoj: Zagreb kao studija slučaja/Appropripation of Jewish Property in Croatia: Zagreb as a Case Study. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2022.
Caldwell, J. Paul, Anxiety Disorders. Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited, 2005.
Cohen, Yinon. “From Haven to Heaven – Changing Composition of Israel’s Population.” In: Challenging Ethnic Citizenship. German and Israeli Perspectives on Immigration, ed. Daniel Levy; Yfaat Weiss. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2002, 36-56.
Delimo, Žan. Strah na Zapadu I-II. Novi Sad: Književna zajednica Novog Sada, 1987.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. Israeli Society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967.
Ekman, Paul. “An Argument for Basic Emotions.” Cognition and Emotion, 6 (1992), 3-4: 169-200.
Eliav, Arie Lova. “The Absorption of One Million Immigrants by Israel in the 1950s.” Refuge 14 (1994), 6: 11-13.
Erić, Ljubomir. Strah, anksioznost i anksiozna stanja. Beograd: Institut za stručno usavršavanje i specijalizaciju zdravstvenih radnika, 1972.
Fathi, Mastoureh; Ní Laoire, Caitríona. Migration and Home. Cham: Springer, 2024.
Freidenreich, Harriet Pass. The Jews of Yugoslavia: A Quest for Community. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979.
Handlin, Oscar. A Continuing Task. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee 1914-1964. New York: Random House, 1964.
Herzog, Chaim (updated by Gazit, Schlomo). Arab-Israeli Wars. War and Peace in the Middle East from the 1948 War of Independence to the Present. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2005.
Ivanković, Mladenka. Jevreji u Jugoslaviji (1944-1952). Kraj ili novi početak. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2009.
Ivanković, Mladenka. Brodovi nade. Alije jugoslovenskih Jevreja u Izrael. Beograd: HERAedu, 2017.
Karakaš Obradov, Marica, “Iseljavanje Židova iz Hrvatske nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata.” Historijski zbornik 66 (2013), 2: 391-404.
Koselleck, Reinhart. “‘Erfahrungsraum‘ und ’Erwartungshorizont’: zwei historische Kategorien.” in Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeit. Baden-Baden: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988, 349-374.
Latas, Milan. Anksiozni poremećaji. Teorija i praksa. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2021.
Lund, Crick. “Poverty and Mental Health: A Review of Practice and Policies.” Neuropsychiatry 2 (2012), 3: 213-219.
Neumann, Shoshanna. Aliyah to Israel: Immigration under Conditions of Adversity. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, 1999.
Petersen, William. “A General Typology of Migration.” American Sociological Review 23 (1958), 3: 256-266.
Pickering, Michael. “Experience as Horizon: Koselleck, Expectation and Historical Time.” Cultural Studies 18 (2004), 2-3: 271-289
Радовановић, Милан, “Ционизам и прагматизам – Зашто су се југословенски Јевреји иселили у Израел? (1948-1952).” Београдски историјски гласник 6 (2015), 215-249.
Radovanović, Milan. “Fear in the Process of Organized Jewish Emigration from Yugoslavia to Israel (1948-1952).” Godišnjak za društvenu istoriju (submitted)
Радовановић, Милан. Исељавање Јевреја из Југославије у Израел (1948 – 1952). Београд: Музеј жртава геноцида, 2022.
Радовановић, Милан. “Извештаји Савеза јеврејских вероисповедних општина Југославије о завршетку прва два таласа организованог исељавања у Израел 1948/9.” Годишњак за друштвену историју 2 (2020), 83-93.
Радовановић, Милан. “Извод из дописа Хитахдут Олеј Југославије (9. март 1949).” Годишњак за друштвену историју 3 (2024), 95-100.
Радовановић, Милан. “Организована емиграција капитала – Збирни рачун репатрираца за Израел (1948-1952).” Архив 18, 1-2 (2017): 164-184.
Радовановић, Милан. “Писмо југословенског исељеника у Израелу.” Архив 15, 1-2 (2014): 239-242.
Радовановић, Милан. “Поједини статистички аспекти организованог исељавања Јевреја из Југославије у Израел (1948-1952).” Годишњак за друштвену историју 2 (2015), 53-81.
Radovanović, Milan. “The Internal Framework of Organized Jewish Migration from Yugoslavia to Israel (1948-1952).” Istorija XX veka 37 (2019), 1: 130-135.
Rycroft, Charles. Anxiety and Neurosis. London: Penguin Books, 1971.
Samuel, Edwin. The Structure of Society in Israel. New York: Random House, 1969.
Schinkel, Anders. “Imagination as a Category of History.” History and Theory 44 (2005), 1: 42-54.
Spomenica 1919-1969. Beograd: Savez jevrejskih opština Jugoslavije, 1969.
Strongman, Kenneth T. “Theories of Anxiety.” New Zealand Journal of Psychology 24 (1995), 2: 4-10.
Troen, Ilan. “Zuwanderung und Eingliederung: Die Perspektive eines Israeli.” In: Zuwanderung und Eingliederung von Deutschen und Juden aus der früheren Sowjetunion in Deutschland und Israel, ed. Klaus Bade, Ilan Troen. Bonn: Bundesministerium des Innern, 1993, 26-36.
Tyrer, Peter J. Anxiety: A Multidisciplinary Review. London: Imperial College Press, 1999.
Waterston, Albert. Planning in Yugoslavia, Organization and Implementation. Washington: Economic Development Institute, 1962.
Weingrod, Alex. Israel: Group Relations in a New Society. London: Institute for Race Relations, 1965.
Wiking, Malin. “Migration and Mental Health.” Psyke & Logos 22 (2001), 147-157.
Williams, Allan M; Baláž, Vladimir. “Migration, Risk and Uncertainty: Theoretical Perspectives.” Population, Space and Place 18 (2012), 2: 167-180.
Životić, Aleksandar. “Jugoslavija i Bliski istok (1945-1956).” In: Spoljna politika Jugoslavije 1950-1961, ed. Slobodan Selinić. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2008, 483-496.
Online sources
„Urbah, Hinko (Urbach, Heinrich)“. In: Židovski biografski leksikon (radna verzija). Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža. Date of access May 25, 2025. https://zbl.lzmk.hr/?p=2629.
Vital Statistics: Population of Israel (1948-present). Date of access May 25, 2025. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/population-of-israel-1948-present.
Pojava anksioznosti tijekom organiziranog iseljavanja Židova iz Jugoslavije u Izrael (1948. – 1952.)
U članku se na temelju gradiva iz arhiva Jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja u Beogradu obrađuje tema pojave anksioznosti kod jugoslavenskih Židova koji su organizirano iseljavali iz Jugoslavije od 1948. do 1952. Oni koji su se odlučili na iseljavanje uglavnom su očekivali pronaći preživjele članove obitelji, ostvariti osobne cionističke ideale, napustiti društveno-politički kontekst poslijeratne države i udaljiti se od ostataka antisemitizma u jugoslavenskom društvu. Pritom, čini se, nisu uzeli u obzir mogućnost da im iseljavanja neće ispuniti očekivanja.
Nedugo nakon što su se iseljenici prvog vala potužili organizaciji Hitachdut Olei Jugoslavije na uvjete života u novostvorenoj židovskoj državi, dio je jugoslavenskih Židova počeo ozbiljnije razmatrati mogućnost da Izrael neće ispuniti njihova očekivanja. Posljedica je bila pojava anksioznosti, ponajprije povezane s pretpostavkom da u novoj domovini neće moći materijalno zbrinuti sebe i svoju obitelj. Iseljenici su nastojali zaobići propise jugoslavenske države vezane za izvoz pokretne imovine u Izrael jer su želji novu domovinu ponijeti što veći dio uglavnom skromne imovine kojom su raspolagali nakon rata. S druge strane, među osobama zainteresiranima za napuštanje zemlje pojavile su se različite inicijative za organizaciju tečajeva za stjecanje novih vještina za koje se pretpostavljalo da će im omogućiti lakše pronalaženje zaposlenja u novostvorenoj državi na Bliskom istoku.
Ključne riječi: Federativna Narodna Republika Jugoslavija; Izrael; Židovi; iseljavanje; anksioznost