In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Israel's Shaar Ha'aliya Camp through the Lens of COVID-19:Does the History of Quarantine Matter?
• Rhona Seidelman (bio)

Click for larger view
View full resolution Figure 1.

Immigrants at Shaar Ha'aliya, with the barbed wire fence behind them.

Source: Central Zionist Archive, NKH/405834.

[End Page 113]

The quarantine at Shaar Ha'aliya was controversial from the start. Opened in March 1949 off the coast of Haifa, Shaar Ha'aliya was Israel's central immigration processing camp, akin to Ellis Island, during the period of Israel's post-1948 mass immigration. Between May 1948 and January 1952, nearly 700,000 people moved to Israel, doubling the population of the country in only a few short years.¹ In that time, over 400,000 of the country's immigrants went through Shaar Ha'aliya.² Although in various stages of Israel's first years there were other controlled immigration centers, Shaar Ha'aliya was the only central processing camp. What sets it apart is its size, the diversity of its population—people who came from countries as different as France, Poland, Austria, Morocco, Iraq, and Yemen³—and the critical role it played in shaping the Israeli people during the country's formative years. A historic site of Jewish migration, Shaar Ha'aliya stands alone in Israeli history.

A Breached Fence, Immigrant Protest, and a "Broader Applicability" of Quarantine

Soon after the establishment of Shaar Ha'aliya, people both in and outside of Israel were involved in a discussion of its function and perception as a quarantine. The idea that this central port of arrival for Jewish immigrants to the Jewish state could be a quarantine was a volatile issue that led to strained, impassioned debate. The criticism and anger were focused on the barbed wire fence that surrounded the camp. People criticizing the fence were upset at the imagery of such a structure that, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, made this place—which was supposed to be a space of welcoming and homecoming—look like European displaced persons and concentration camps. People defending the fence repeatedly emphasized that it was necessary to maintain a quarantine which, they argued, was itself a crucial public health measure that protected the larger society from the diseases that immigrants were carrying.

In my book Under Quarantine: Immigrants and Disease at Israel's Gate, I explore the problems with the public health defense of Shaar Ha'aliya's enclosure.⁴ I focus on the evident contradiction in the fact that neither the barbed wire fence nor the police guard actually prevented people from coming in and out of the camp. Officially, immigrants were forbidden to leave the camp until they had completed their medical exam, so the main entrance was off-limits to them for the duration of their stay. However, crawling under the barbed wire [End Page 114] to get in and out of the camp allowed the immigrants the freedom to largely go on with their lives. They went into the nearby city of Haifa looking for entertainment and jobs. They visited friends and family, and they bought products on the black market. In many cases, they simply returned to the camp later in the day, once again crawling under the barbed wire. This situation led one official to admit, "In theory the camp is closed, but in reality it is open to all."⁵ Moreover, the main ailments found and tracked in Shaar Ha'aliya were trachoma, tuberculosis, syphilis, head lice, and scabies.⁶ None of these were deemed "quarantinable" in Israel at the time.⁷ The Shaar Ha'aliya administration knew that the breaches were a regular occurrence, but they did not see them as evidence that the quarantine was failing nor that the barbed wire fence and police should be removed. Instead, they continued to insist that quarantine was necessary to protect the rest of the country from diseases the immigrants were carrying. And so I raise the question: how could the same people who knew that the quarantine was ineffectual still insist that it was medically necessary?

Quarantine, understood broadly, is a cross-cultural act of separation that has been used as a means...

中文翻译：

---

以色列的Shaar Ha'aliya营地从COVID-19的角度看：隔离史很重要吗？

代替摘要，这里是内容的简要摘录：

• 以色列的Shaar Ha'aliya营地从COVID-19的角度看：隔离史很重要吗？
• 罗纳·塞德尔曼（生物）

单击查看大图
查看完整分辨率图1。

Shaar Ha'aliya的移民，身后有带刺的铁丝网。

资料来源：中央犹太复国主义档案馆，NKH / 405834。

[完第113页]

Shaar Ha'aliya的隔离区从一开始就引起争议。萨尔·哈阿利亚（Shaar Ha'aliya）于1949年3月在海法（Haifa）沿海开放，是以色列1948年后大规模移民时期类似于埃利斯岛（Ellis Island）的以色列中央移民加工营地。在1948年5月至1952年1月之间，将近700,000人移居以色列，仅在短短几年内该国的人口就增加了一倍。¹那时，该国超过40万移民通过了Shaar Ha'aliya。^2个尽管在以色列成立初期的各个阶段中，还有其他受控的移民中心，但Shaar Ha'aliya是唯一的中央加工营地。它与众不同的是它的规模，人口的多样性（来自法国，波兰，奥地利，摩洛哥，伊拉克和也门^3等不同国家的人），以及该国在塑造以色列人民的过程中发挥的关键作用。成长期。Shaar Ha'aliya是犹太人移民的历史古迹，在以色列历史上独树一帜。

隔离栅栏，移民抗议和检疫的“更广泛的适用性”

Shaar Ha'aliya成立后不久，以色列境内外的人们都参与了对它作为隔离区的功能和观念的讨论。犹太移民到犹太国家的中央到达港口可能是隔离区的想法是一个动荡不定的问题，引发了紧张而热情的辩论。批评和愤怒集中在营地周围的铁丝网上。批评围栏的人们对这种结构的图像感到不安，以致在大屠杀之后，这个地方（本来应该是一个欢迎和回家的空间）看起来像欧洲流离失所者和集中营。捍卫围栏的人们反复强调，必须保持隔离，他们认为，

在我的《隔离之下：以色列之门的移民与疾病》一书中，我探讨了Shaar Ha'aliya监狱禁区的公共卫生防御问题。⁴我将重点放在明显的矛盾上，即铁丝网围栏和警务人员都实际上并没有阻止人们进出营地。正式地，移民被禁止离开营地，直到他们完成体检，因此在他们逗留期间，主要入口对他们是禁止进入的。但是，在铁丝网下爬行[结束页面114]进出营地允许移民自由地继续自己的生活。他们进入附近的海法市寻找娱乐和工作。他们拜访了朋友和家人，并在黑市上购买了产品。在许多情况下，他们只是在当天晚些时候返回营地，再次在铁丝网下爬行。这种情况导致一位官员承认：“理论上，难民营是封闭的，但实际上它是向所有人开放的。” ⁵此外，在Shaar Ha'aliya发现并追踪的主要疾病是沙眼，结核，梅毒，头虱和sc疮。⁶当时在以色列，没有一个被认为是“可隔离的”。⁷Shaar Ha'aliya政府知道违规行为是经常发生的，但他们没有将其视为隔离检疫失败的证据，也没有将其作为有刺铁丝网和警察应予以清除的证据。相反，他们继续坚持认为必须进行检疫，以保护该国其他地区免受移民携带的疾病的侵害。因此，我提出一个问题：知道检疫无效的同一个人又怎么会坚持认为这在医学上是必要的呢？

从广义上讲，隔离是一种跨文化的隔离行为，已被用作一种手段...