Transcript Ethiopian Jews

Ethiopian Jews
OSP, 2008
Dr. 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 Mura
The 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 selfconcept 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/ selfcategorization and enhancement in ways that
favor the in-group at the expense of the outgroup. 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
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 selfdefinition 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.