Ethiopian Jews

OSP, 2008Dr. Yehuda Bar Shalom

First Contact in Modern times. 18th Century

when Scottish explorer James Bruce stumbled upon them while searching

for

the source of the Nile River. His estimates at the time placed the Beta

Israel around the 100000 number

1955

Some Contact with the Jewish Agency

1973

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef declares them as Jews from the tribe of Dan

1977 – Begin comes to power

In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous

members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of

being “Zionist spies,” and Jewish religious leaders ,

Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.

Operation Moses

Operation Moses began on November 18, 1984, and ended six weeks later on

January 5, 1985. In that time, almost 8,000 Jews were rescued and brought to

Israel.

Operation Solomon

In 36 hours, non-stop flights of 34 IAF C-130s,

filled to absolute capacity with seats transported

14,325 Beta Israel émigrés from Ethiopia to Israel ,

In Israel

new arrivals spent between six months and two years in absorption

centers learning Hebrew, being retrained for Israel's industrial

society, and learning how to live in a modern society (most Ethiopian villages had no running water or

electricity) .

Depression

Suicide, all but unheard of in their tukuls in Ethiopia, even

claimed a few of the new arrivals due to the anxiety of

separation and departure .

Falash MuraThe Falash Mura were virtually unknown

until Operation Solomon, when a number attempted to board the Israeli planes and were turned away. The Falash Mura said they were entitled to immigrate because

they were Jews by ancestry, but the Israelis saw them as non-Jews, since most had never practiced Judaism and were not

considered by the Beta Israel as part of the community.

Ethiopian Activists

Ethiopian Jewry activists maintained that the Falash Mura had been forced

to convert or had done so for pragmatic reasons without ever really

abandoning their Jewish faith.

Identity Research

Salient Identities

Both Israeli and Ethiopian

Only Israeli

Only Ethiopian

Neither this nor that

The education system

Different values on Education

Afro Music

Tupac, Notorious Big.

Myths

They feel a lack of respect.

In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves

that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may

trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “level

of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other

words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any

internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal

identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes .

Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization

and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples

(minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals

categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup

favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive

self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some

valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I .’

Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is

particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to

internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to

which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison

group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup.

Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-

definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable .

In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies. Schoolboys were

assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned

randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict,

personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the

other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to

encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that

awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other

words, they displayed ingroup favoritism .